ResearchStudy

ELECTORALPARTICIPATIONOF
ELECTORSWITHDISABILITIES:
CANADIANPRACTICESINA
COMPARATIVECONTEXT

PreparedforElectionsCanadaby
MichaelJ.Prince
ProfessorofSocialPolicy
UniversityofVictoria
March2012

TableofContents
NotetotheReader..................................................................................................................4
ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................5
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................9
1.1. PurposesandScopeoftheAnalysis.................................................................................9
1.2. OutlineoftheReport.....................................................................................................10
1. ConceptualandAnalyticalFramework...........................................................................12
2.1. CentralConcepts............................................................................................................12
2.2. ResearchMethods..........................................................................................................16
3. LiteratureReview...........................................................................................................17
3.1. VoterTurnoutandAttitudesTowardtheElectoralProcess..........................................17
1.3. 3.2.BarriersFacedbyElectorswithDisabilities............................................................24
4. VotingMethods..............................................................................................................29
4.1. InternationalDevelopments..........................................................................................29
4.2. CanadianDevelopments................................................................................................32
5. BestPracticesinElectoralAdministrationandOutreach................................................41
6. Conclusion......................................................................................................................47
6.1. SummaryofKeyFindings...............................................................................................47
6.2. Recommendations.........................................................................................................50
6.3. KnowledgeGapsandResearchNeeds...........................................................................52
Bibliography..........................................................................................................................55

NOTETOTHEREADER
ThispaperwaspreparedbyMichaelPrince,UniversityofVictoria,forElectionsCanada.The
observationsandconclusionsarethoseoftheauthor.

EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Thisreportaddressesthreemainresearchquestions:Whatbarriersdopeoplewithdisabilities,
physicaland/ormental,facewhentryingtovote?Whatreformshavecountriesand,inthecase
ofCanada,provincesintroducedsince2000toreduceoreliminatebarrierstovotingforpeople
withdisabilities?Morespecifically,whatservices,supportsandlawsorstandardshave
governmentsintroducedtoensurebetteraccesstovotingbyelectorswithdisabilities?The
specificfocusofthisreportisontherighttovote,ratherthanontherighttofreelyassociateas
anactivistortorunasacandidateandtoholdelectedoffice.Fivenationaljurisdictionsare
reviewedinthisreport,specificallyAustralia,Canada,theUnitedKingdom,theUnitedStates
andNewZealand.OnCanada,attentionisgiventodevelopmentsandpracticesatthefederal,
andprovincialandterritoriallevelsofgovernment.
Electoralparticipationisconceptualizedinregardstothreedimensions.First,theenvironment
ofpolicy,courtdecisions,legislation,anddisabilitygroupactions.Thelattergroupcomprisesan
independentfeatureofelectoralparticipation.Secondly,thepracticesofelectoral
managementbodies,includingthevotingmethodsdeployed,especiallythosemethods
specificallydesignedtoassistelectorswithdisabilitieswithvoting.Thirdly,theelectors
themselvesandthoseindividualsandgroups,suchasfamily,friendsandothers,intheir
immediatesupportnetwork.
Electoralparticipationcomprisesawholesetofrulesandvotingtechniques,procedures,levels
ofinteractionandnetworksofrelationships.Whatappearstoberequiredisathreefold
approachthataddresseselectoraladministration,electorsandtheirimmediatecontextof
everydaylife,andlargerenvironmentalconditionsofpublicattitudes,publicpoliciesand
legislation,andtheroleofcivilsocietyorganizations.Formanyelectoralcommissionsacross
democraticnations,thefocushasbeenonimprovementstotheaccessibilityofregisteringand
voting.
Throughlitigation,lobbyingandotherdemocraticmeans,disabilitygroupsinCanada,Australia,
theUK,theUSandothernationshavetakenactiontoremoveobviousbarrierstoelectoral
participationandtoimprovetheadministrationofelectionsandtheelectoralprocess.Election
campaignsareastrategicopportunityforgroupstotestbyexperiencethelegalguaranteesof
equalityandaccessibility;todisseminateinformationaboutdisabilityrelatedissues(andother
publicpolicymatters,too);topromotecertainrecommendationsandpreferredsolutionsfor
bettermeetinghumanneeds;topetitioncandidatesandpoliticalparties;andtoraise
awarenessofthemassmediaand,throughtheseagencies,votersandthepublicmore
generally.Manyimprovementstoelectoralprocessesandadministrationhavetakenplacein
Canadaandothernationsthatbenefittheparticipationofelectorswithdisabilities.Various
promisingpracticesinelectoraladministrationhavebeenidentifiedandareworth
considerationbyjurisdictionsthatpresentlydonotoffersuchoutreachservicesoroptionsin
accessibleandinclusivevotingmethods.

Itisproblematictoassumethatthereisasinglegoldstandardinelectoralparticipationa
standardthatisoftenseenasvotinginperson,insideapollingstation,withoutassistance,in
secret,onelectionday,andregardlessofonesdisabilityandneeds.Thatformulationdefinitely
expressesanumberofcherishedvalues.However,itrisksestablishingaonebestwaytovote,
ofprojectingauniversalideathatistooabstract,andtoodisembodiedanddistantfromthe
diversitiesofhumancommunities.Suchauniversalidealrendersinvisiblethecircumstances,
andtheobstaclesandbarriersfaced,bymanycitizenswithdisabilities.Wemustthereforebe
cautiousindrawinghardandfastconclusionsastowhatworksandwhatareexemplary
practices.Assumptionsofonesizefitsallsolutionsaretrickygiventhecomplexities,variety
andcontinualchangesinelectoralsystemsandpracticesandinpoliticalcontextsaroundthe
world.
Mostnationsworldwidedisqualifypeoplefromvotingbasedonmentalincapacity.IntheUS,if
apersonwithamentalorcognitiveimpairmentisassignedaguardian,thedisabledpersoncan
faceanautomaticlegalexclusionfromtherighttovote.InAustraliaandNewZealand,medical
certificationsareoftenusedtodisqualifyindividualswithmentalimpairmentsfromvoting.
WhiletherehavebeenlegislativereformsintheUKtoprotecttherightsofpeopledeemedto
havelearningorintellectualdisabilities,exclusionsstilltakeplace.Canadaisoneofjustafew
countriesworldwidewithnostatutoryexclusionbasedonmentalincapacity.
Stillotherbarrierstovotingbyelectorswithdisabilitiescontinuetoexistinallthecountries
surveyedforthisreport.Thisisevidentbytheseveralstudiesnotedinthereportwhich,across
variouscountries,jurisdictionsandtypesofelectoralsystems,pointtotheunder
representationofpeoplewithdisabilitiesasvotersinelections.Barrierstovotingarenot
exclusivelyorpredominantlyexplicableintermsofindividualimpairments.Moreover,the
accessofelectoralsystemsisnotexplainedsimplybyreferencetothepresenceofanarrayof
votingmethods.Rather,theaccessibilityof,andopportunityforvotingbypeoplewith
disabilitiesdependsonanumberofpolicy,environmentalandsocialfactors.Lookingahead,
therefore,toamorerobustagendaofreformstoenhancetheparticipationofelectorswith
disabilities,thefocusmustbeonthelifeofpersonswithdisabilitiesandtherolethatkeyactors
incivilsocietycananddoplayinfacilitatingcivicengagement.
Afundamentalfindingfromthisreportisthatdifferentmodelsofdisabilitycoexistwithinand
aroundelectoralrules,procedures,practicesandoverallsystems.Electoralarrangementsin
Canada,aswellasinotherdevelopeddemocracies,incorporatethreedistinctmodelsof
disability:anindividualisticandbiomedicalapproachtodisability,afunctionalmodelof
disabilityandasocialmodelofdisability.Thesedifferentmodelshavedistinctiveimplications
foraddressingbarriersandmakingaccessandinclusionrealforvoterswithdisabilities.In
recentdecades,electoralmanagementbodiesandgovernmentshavebeenundertaking
changestoelectionprocesses,expandingtherangeofvotingmethodsforelectorswith
disabilitiesandtakingotherstepstofacilitatecivicengagement.Ingeneral,thesechangesare
shiftingthemixofdisabilitymodelsembeddedinelectoralsystems,awayfromindividualand
medicalconceptionsandtowardthefunctionalandsocialconceptionsofdisability.

Electoralreformshaveaddressedseveraldifferentbroadcategoriesofimpairments:electors
withpermanentdisabilities,seriousillnessorinfirmity;electorswithphysicalmobilityissues;
electorswithhearingchallenges;electorswithvisualimpairments;andelectorswithany
significantdisability,whetherchronicorepisodicinnature,visibleorinvisibleinappearance.
Thereportoffersrecommendationsdesignedtoreducebarriersthatelectorswithdisabilities
face,andhowtocommunicatewithandmoreeffectivelyreachthisgroupofelectors.Any
recommendationsmustmeetthetestoffosteringtheeffectiveinvolvementofpeoplewith
disabilitiesinpoliticalandpubliclife,includingelectoralparticipation,onanequalbasiswith
otherCanadiancitizens.
Thus,itisrecommendedthatElectionsCanadareviewallofitselectoralpoliciesand
procedures,andadministrativerulesandpracticesintermsoftheprinciples,articlesand
obligationsintheUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.Elections
Canadashouldintroduceanemployeetrainingprogramforelectionworkersaboutraising
awarenessarounddisabilityissuesandsensitivityissuesfordisabledelectors.Theaimof
awarenesstrainingistocorrectmisconceptions,tocombatstereotypesandtocounselstaffin
therightsrecognizedintheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities,soasto
betterprovideservices.ElectionsCanadashouldalsoseekstatutoryresponsibilitytoundertake
reportsonthelevelofaccessibilityofpollingstations,thetypeofaccessibilityequipmentused,
thetypeofalternativetechnologiesdeployedandtheavailabilityofreportsinaccessible
format.
Intermsofstrengtheningoutreach,ElectionsCanadashouldapproachthemajorpolitical
partiesatthenationalleveltoconsultonhowtoensure,throughinformationguidesandother
policytools,thatallcandidatemeetingsareaccessibleinsuchmattersaslocationofmeetings,
advertising,signageandassistiveservices.Similarly,ElectionsCanadaoughttoconsider
underpinningitsrelationshipswithnationalorganizationsrepresentingpersonswith
disabilities,includingtheinvolvementofdisabledelectorsinpostelectionassessmentsor
evaluationsofelectoralpracticesandexperiences,andinidentifyinggapsandprioritiesto
reducebarriersaswellasplansforimprovingaccessibility.Thisworkingrelationshipmightbe
donethroughadisabilityadvisorygrouptoElectionsCanada.

1. INTRODUCTION
PeoplewithdisabilitiesrepresentagrowingsocialgroupinCanadaaswellasinothercountries,
andtheirparticipationcouldnotablyaffectoverallturnoutlevels(McColl2006;Schur1998).
Moreover,demographicchangesmeanthatwewillseeagrowthinthenumberofdisabled
childrencomingofvotingageandanincreaseinoldervoterswithageacquiredimpairments
(Scope2010a,6).Electoralparticipationisabasicdemocraticright,longrecognizedasa
fundamentalcomponentofcitizenshipandhumanrightsarecognitiongivenrecent
affirmationintheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.Theabsenceofthe
actualexerciseofthatrighthaspolicyandsocialconsequences:Whenadiscretegroupof
citizensisdisenfranchised,itsconsequentlackofpoliticalpowermaybereflectedina
systematicneglectoftheissuesofgreatestimporttoitsmembersorthatgroup(Karlawishet
al.2008,66).
AstheCanadianpopulationcontinuestoage,examiningtheinterplayofdisabilityandvoter
turnoutwillgrowinimportanceforunderstandingthedynamicsofelectoralinvolvementand
civicengagement.Studyingelectoralparticipationbypersonswithdisabilitiesmayofferlessons
thatapplymoregenerallytothebroaddeclineinvoterturnoutoverthelastfewdecadesin
manydemocracies.Promisingpracticesinelectoraloutreachandintheadministrationof
electionsystems,identifiedinonejurisdictionormore,caninformotherjurisdictions.
Ultimately,thetopictouchesdirectlyoncorepublicideasofrepresentationandinclusion,and
ongovernanceprocessesofpoliticalparticipationandpolicymaking(Beckett2006;Milner
2002;Pilon2007)forthisdiversegroupofelectorsagroupthatwestillknowrelativelylittle
aboutwhenitcomestotheirvotinghabitsandexperiences(Schuretal.2002,172;United
Response2010).Whatbarriersdocitizenswithdisabilitiesfacewhenaccessingavotingprocess
inCanada?Whatmethodsandtechniquesmaybestreachthisgroupofelectors?Whatmight
Canadianelectoralmanagementbodieslearnfrompracticesinternationallyinotherliberal
democracies?Tobegintoanswerthesefundamentalquestions,thisreportprovidesaconcise
synthesisoftheexistingliteraturethatidentifiesbothsuccessesandchallengesfacedbyvoters
withdisabilities.

1.1.

PurposesandScopeoftheAnalysis

ResearchhasdemonstratedthatsomegroupstendtovotelessthanthemainstreamCanadian
population,includingelectorswithdisabilities.ElectionsCanadaiscommittedtoensuring
accessibilitytotheelectoralprocessforthisgroup.Todoso,itisimportantthatweexamine
andbetterunderstandthebarriersthatelectorswithdisabilitiesface,andassessthemethods
andvehiclesthatmaybestreachthisgroupofelectors.Thestudyhasfivemainobjectives:

tobetterunderstandthebarriersthatelectorswithdisabilitiesfaceandhowtoensurethis
grouphasaccesstothevotingprocess;

toconductaliteraturereviewontheelectoralparticipationofelectorswithdisabilities,
includingvoterturnoutandattitudestowardtheelectoralprocess;

toreviewvotingmethodsdeployedbyelectoralmanagementbodiesinCanadaandin
selectedjurisdictionsabroadthatmightbeusefultoelectorswithdisabilities(e.g.mail
ballot,Internetvoting),aswellasmethodsspecificallydesignedtoassistelectorswith
disabilitiesinvoting(electronicvotingdevice,templates,ballotinBraille,andsoon);

tomakerecommendationsonbestpracticestoreducebarriersthatelectorswith
disabilitiesfaceandhowtocommunicatewithandreachthisgroupofelectors;and

toidentifygapsintheliteratureonelectoralparticipationofelectorswithdisabilitieswhere
newresearchisrequiredandareasforfurtherstudy.

Thisresearchwillinformandcontributetoaknowledgebaseonthisgroupofelectors.
Withrespecttocivicinclusionanddemocraticcitizenship,thespecificfocusofthisreportison
therighttovote,ratherthanontherighttofreelyassociateasanactivistortorunforelected
office.ThecriteriaforselectingthesampleofcountriesforthisstudyweretoincludeCanada
(federalaswellasprovincial/territorial),plusasmallgroupofothercountriesthatexhibit
uniqueorinnovativepolicyreformsandbestpracticesinelectoraladministrationandoutreach
forelectorswithdisabilitiesideallywithpublishedevidenceavailableonboth.Thetime
periodcoveredspansapproximately2000to2011.
Inlightofthesecriteria,andinformedbyareviewofthepublishedcomparativeliterature(e.g.
CameronandValentine2001),thegroupofjurisdictionsreviewedinthisreportincludeCanada,
Australia,theUnitedStates,theUnitedKingdomandNewZealand.Eachofthesecountriesisa
wellestablishedliberaldemocracy;otherthantheUS,theyareallWestminsterparliamentary
systems;threearefederalsystems(Australia,CanadaandtheUS);andallhaveactivedisability
communitiesandvariousformsofdisabilityrightslegislation.Eachofthesejurisdictionshas
informationreadilyavailableandhasoneormorepolicyfeaturesthataddresses,inan
innovativeway,oneormoreofthechallengesofelectoralparticipationbyelectorswith
physicaldisablementsand/ormentalimpairments.

1.2.

OutlineoftheReport

Followingthisintroductorysection,Section2describestheconceptualandanalytical
frameworkforthereport,identifiesthedatasources,presentsthecentralconceptsand
outlinestheresearchmethodsemployed.
Section3offerstheresultsoftheliteraturereview.Theseresultsarediscussedinrelationto
evidenceonthevoterturnoutbypersonswithdisabilitiesascomparedwiththegeneral
population,attitudestowardtheelectoralprocess,thebarriersfacedbyelectorswith
disabilities,andotherselectedissuesonelectoralparticipation.
Section4examinesvotingmethodsinCanadaandinthefourothercasestudycountries,with
respecttobothgeneralmethodsforallelectorsandspecificmethodsforvoterswithspecial
needs.Section5providesanoverviewofprogressivereformsorbestpracticesinelectoral
administrationandoutreachservicesacrossCanadianjurisdictionsandintheothercountries.

10

Followingthisanalysis,Section6thenoffersconclusionssummarizingthekeyfindings,
offeringrecommendations,andidentifyingknowledgegapsandresearchneedsdeserving
furtherinquiry.Section7containsanextensivebibliography.

11

1. CONCEPTUALANDANALYTICALFRAMEWORK
Theresearchapproachforthisstudyisacomparative,contemporaryinstitutionalandpolicy
analysis.Bothqualitativeandquantitativedatawillbedrawnuponandusedinthisproject.As
appliedresearch,theintentistounderstandparticularstateandpoliticalinstitutionsanda
specificsetofsociopoliticalactivitiesandinteractionsinthiscase,therelationbetween
electoraladministrationandparticipationofelectorswithadisability.
Informationforthisresearchprojectcomesfromexistingdata,researchandpublishedmaterial
fromacademic,governmentalandnongovernmentalsourcesinCanadaandothercountries
andfrominternationalorganizations.Inaddition,thisincludeswebcontentandrelated
literatureonelectoralparticipationingeneralandmoreparticularlyonparticipationbyelectors
withadisability.Theliteratureonvotinganddisabilityencompassesnewspaperarticles,
reportsbydisabilitygroupsontheaccessibilityofparticularelections,electoralcommission
studiesanddocuments,aswellasacademicwriting,largelyfoundinthefieldsofpolitical
science,disabilitystudies,andlaw.

2.1. CentralConcepts
Thefocalpointforthestudyisdisability,ofwhicharecentinternationalstatementisusedin
thisreport.TheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilitiessaysaboutdisability:
Recognizingthatdisabilityisanevolvingconceptandthatdisabilityresultsfromthe
interactionbetweenpersonswithimpairmentsandattitudinalandenvironmentalbarriersthat
hinderstheirfullandeffectiveparticipationinsocietyonanequalbasiswithothers.In
addition,theConventionstates:Personswithdisabilitiesincludethosewhohavelongterm
physical,mental,intellectualorsensoryimpairmentswhichininteractionwithvariousbarriers
mayhindertheirfullandeffectiveparticipationinsocietyonanequalbasiswithothers.
Othercentralideasinthereportinclude:

12

electoralattitudes,thatis,electorsopinionsandviewpointstowardelectoralprocesses;

electoralmanagementbodies,whichareindependent,nonpartisanagenciesthatconduct
nationalorprovincial/statelevelgeneralelections.Theyare,typically,thecoreinstitution
inanelectoralregime,havingastatutorybaseofpublicpowersandresponsibilities;

electoralparticipation,whichisunderstoodastheactofvotinginanelection,whetherat
themunicipal,provincialornationallevel;

electorswithdisabilities,whichcan,inonesense,bethoughtofasanyonewhoself
identifiesasapersonwithabodilyimpairmentthataffectshisorhereverydaylivingand
functioninginthecommunity.Inanothersense,adisabledvotercanrefertoofficial
definitionsfoundinlegislationorregulations,andtospecifictypesofimpairmentsand
degreesofseverity;

votingmethods,whicharetherules,proceduresandmeansbywhichballotsarecastin
elections.1Methodsofvotecastingencompassbothgenerictechniques,suchasmailballot
andInternetvoting,andspecifictoolsandpracticesforelectorswithdisabilities,suchas
electronicvotingdevices,templates,andballotsinBraille;

voterturnout,whichwillbediscussedinregardstoparticipationratesbasedonthe
calculationofthenumberofregisteredvoters;

votingpathways,whichrelatetotherangeofpotentialandactualwaysandlocationsin
whichpersonswithdisabilitiesarelikelytointeractwithelectoralsystems,electionsand
voting;and

bestpractices,whichrefertoanyprogressivedevelopmentinelectoraladministration,
outreachandcommunicationsthatadvancestheelectoralawareness,accessand
participationofpeoplewithdisabilitiesasvoters.

Together,theseconceptsofferaframeworkthroughwhichelectoralparticipationis
understoodasamultifacetedsystemofvotingmethodsandprocessesthatexhibitavarietyof
relationsbetweenelectoralmanagementbodiesandelectors,andamongvoterswith
disabilities,otherindividualsandinstitutionalactors,thewidersocialenvironmentandpublic
policycontext.Table1outlinesthebasicelementsoftheconceptualfocusintermsofthree
majordimensionsofvoterparticipationanddemocraticcitizenshipandalsolistssomekey
characteristicsineachdimension.
Table1BasicElementsoftheConceptualFocusonElectoralParticipation

EnvironmentofPublicPolicy,DisabilityActivism,andOtherInstitutions

UNConventions,humanrightscodesanddisabilitydiscriminationlaws

Litigationandcourtortribunaldecisions

Politicalpartycandidates,platformsandcampaignpractices

Publictransportationservices

Disabilityadvocacyandserviceproviderorganizations

ElectoralFrameworkandPractices

Electoralsystems:firstpastthepost,additionalmembersystem,singletransferable
vote,regionallistsystem2

Votingmethodsdifferfromvotingsystems,thelatterofwhichPilon(2007,23)definesbrieflyasthe
mechanismbywhichvotesaretranslatedintorepresentationinourlegislatures.
2

Therelevanceofthisdimensionisreadilyapparentamongthecountriessurveyedinthisreport.IntheUK,
severalelectoralsystemsareinusedependingonthetypeorlevelofjurisdiction.ForWestminsterparliamentary
electionsandforlocalelectionsinEnglandandWales,asinglememberpluralitysystem(orfirstpastthepost)isin

13

Electionlegislation

Registrationprocesses

Votingtechnologiesandmethods:postal,assistedtechniques

Votingpollsandfacilities

Electionmaterials

Electionofficialsandworkers

ElectorswithDisabilities

Typeandseverityofdisability

Ageandotherdemographiccharacteristics

Livingarrangements:privatehome,grouphome,supportedliving,nursinghome

Immediatemilieuoffamily,friends,neighbours,caregivers

Personalsupportsandservices

Whileelectionarrangements,electorsandtheirimmediatesocialmilieu,andthelargerpolicy
andpoliticalenvironmentareempiricallyinterrelated,itisimportantforanalyticalpurposesto
conceptualizetheseasseparatedimensionsofelectoralparticipation.Eachofthesedimensions
issomewhatdistinctive,inrealityaswell,involvingparticularactorsandgroups,formal
structuresofprofessionaladministrationandinformalorganizationsofhumanrelations,ideas
andpractices.
Itmayalsobesaidthateachdimensionofelectoralparticipationcorrespondsmoreorlesstoa
particularmodelorviewpointofdisability.Thefirstdimensionrelatesespeciallytoasocial
modelofdisabilitywithafocusonenvironmentalfactors,includingculturalbeliefsand
attitudes,humanrightsandpublicpolicyresponses.Theseconddimensionrelatestoa
functionalmodelofdisabilityinwhichelectoralpracticesandvotingmethodsincluding
electionprocedures,communicationandoutreachactivitiesareadaptedinlightofvarying

use;fortheScottishparliamentandNationalAssemblyforWalesandfortheGreaterLondonAssembly,an
additionalmembersystemisineffect;fortheNorthernIrelandAssemblyandlocalelectionsinScotlandand
NorthernIrelandaswellastheLondonmayoralty,asingletransferablesystemisused;andforEuropeanelections,
aregionallistsystemisinuseexceptforNorthernIreland,whereasingletransferablevotesystemoperates.
Australia,inadditiontohavingcompulsoryvoting,hastwovariantsofelectoralsystemsatthenationallevelofthe
Commonwealthgovernment:preferentialvotingfortheHouseofRepresentativesandproportionalrepresentation
(singletransferablevote)fortheSenate.Since1993,NewZealandhashadamixedmemberproportional
representationsysteminwhichelectorshavetwovotes;onecalledthepartyvoteandthesecondtheelectorate
vote.TheelectoralsystemintheUSisperhapsmostsimilartotheCanadiancontextinthat,whilebeinga
presidentialsystemofgovernment,theUS,likeCanadasparliamentarysystem,reliesonafirstpastthepost
votingsystem.Forageneraldiscussionontherangeofvotingsystemsandelectoralprocesses,seePilon(2007).

14

abilitiesandcapacitiesofelectors.Thethirddimensionostensiblyrestsuponanindividualistic
andbiomedicalapproachtodisability,concentratingonthepersonsimpairmentorhealth
conditionandotherindividualcharacteristics.3
Considertheenvironmentofpublicpolicy,votingrightsactivism,thestateandother
institutions;inshort,thepoliticalandlegallandscapeofdisabilityinCanada(Cameronand
Valentine2001;Rae2010;RiouxandPrince2002).Relevantlegislationandpolicy,forexample,
inAustraliaincludestheDisabilityDiscriminationActof1992andtheCommonwealthDisability
Strategyof1998;inNewZealand,theNZSignLanguageActof2006isanotablefeatureofthe
policyenvironmentforsomedisabledpeopleandforpublicservicesmoregenerally;intheUK,
keylegislationincludestheDisabilityDiscriminationAct1995andtheEqualityAct2010,related
regulationsandguidelines;andintheUS,relevantlawsincludetheAmericanswithDisabilities
Actof1990.
Canada,unlikethesecountries,doesnothaveanationaldisabilitydiscriminationlawor
disabilityrightsact,althoughtheideahasbeenraisedbycommunityactivistsandfederal
politicalparties(Prince2010).Forthemostpart,disabilitypoliciesarerootedingenerallaws
ratherthanspecificdisabilityrelatedlegislation,andmuchofthislegislationdefinesdisability
asindividualproblemsandbiomedicalissues(McCollandJongbloed2006;Pothier2006).A
fewCanadianprovinces,specificallyManitoba,OntarioandQuebec,haveaccessibility
legislationforpeoplewithdisabilities.Otherwise,frameworklawsmostimportanttomattersof
disabilityandequalityaretheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms,andfederaland
provincial/territorialhumanrightslaws.
DecisionsbyCanadiancourtsandhumanrightstribunalscanfigureasasignificantinfluenceon
therightsofelectorswithdisabilities,thepracticesofelectoralmanagementbodiesandthe
rangeofvotingmethods.InacarefulreviewoflegaldevelopmentsintheSupremeCourtof
Canadaregardingdisability,Pothier(2006,306)suggeststhatjurisprudenceondisability
signifiesoscillationsbetweenunderstandingandignorance,progressandretrenchment,hope
anddisappointment.Moreover,decisionsbytheFederalCourtofCanadaandtheCanadian
HumanRightsTribunalarerelevantsourcesofjurisprudenceonissuesofdisability,
discriminationandequalityrights.
Electoralframeworksandpracticesaretheseconddimensionofelectoralparticipation.
Internationallyandnationallyspecificprovisionshavebeenincludedinelectorallegislation
that,overall,encompassesawidevarietyofvotingmechanismsthatmayassistelectorswith
disabilitiestovotethroughvariousmeans,includingensuringaccessibilitytopollingstations,
interpretationservicesatpollsandassistancetoelectors.Aswell,variousadministrative
measureshavebeenputintoplacetocommunicatewithelectorswithdisabilitiesandfurther
assistthemwhenvoting.

Forfurtherdiscussionofthesemodelsofdisability,seeHumanResourcesandSkillsDevelopmentCanada(2010,
2011);McCreath(2011);Prince(2009);SchrinerandShields(1998);andWard,BakerandMoon(2009).

15

Electorswithdisabilitiesrepresentthethirddimensionforunderstandingvotingparticipation
andnonparticipationbythisgroupofcitizens.Thisrelatesnotonlytospecificmedical
conditionsandfunctionallimitationsoftheindividual,althoughthesearefundamental
embodiedrealities,butalsotothedemographicandsocioeconomiccharacteristicsofthe
individualelector.Astheliteraturereviewinthisreportmakesclear,thepersonsliving
arrangementsandthenatureofhisorherimmediatesocialmilieuoffamily,friends,
neighboursandcaregiversaresignificantfactors.
Inactuality,thesethreedimensionsofelectoralparticipationaremixedwithindemocratic
communities.Thecharacterofthismixmustbedeterminedbyempiricalresearch.Atanygiven
pointintime,differentjurisdictionsandelectionmanagementbodieslikelygiveprominenceto
oneoranotherofthesedimensions.

2.2. ResearchMethods
Theoverallapproachormethodologyinvolvesfivestepsofresearch,analysisandsynthesison
theelectoralparticipationofelectorswithdisabilities:
1.conductingaliteraturereview,includingvoterturnoutandattitudestowardtheelectoral
process,coveringresearchdoneinCanadaandinselectedjurisdictionsabroadaswellas
mainstreamelectoralparticipationstudies;
2.identifyinggapsintheliteratureonelectoralparticipationofelectorswithdisabilitieswhere
newresearchisrequiredandareasforfurtherstudy;
3.reviewingvotingmethodsdeployedbyelectoralmanagementbodiesinCanadaandin
selectedjurisdictionsabroadthatmightbeusefultoelectorswithdisabilitiesaswellas
methodsspecificallydesignedtoassistelectorswithdisabilitiesinvoting;
4.identifyingbestpracticesdeployedbyelectoralmanagementbodiesincommunicatingand
reachingouttothisgroupofelectors,inCanadaandinselectedjurisdictionsabroad;and
5.makingrecommendationsonbestpracticestoreducebarriersthatelectorswithdisabilities
faceandhowtocommunicatewithandreachthisgroupofelectors.
Afocusedliteraturereviewisthecentralresearchmethod,andthebasisforselectingand
analyzingliteratureisguidedbytheanalyticalapproachandconceptualframeworkdescribed
above.Asanintegrativesurvey(Cooper1998),thisliteraturereviewfocusesnotsomuchon
theoreticalormethodologicalissues,butonprovidinganempiricalsummaryandsynthesisof
studiesonelectoralparticipationandcitizenswithdisabilities.

16

3. LITERATUREREVIEW
Onthetopicofpeoplewithdisabilitiesandelectoralparticipation,theliteraturereviewedfor
thisstudycontainsdifferentkindsofevidence.Asmallnumberofworksarephilosophicalin
nature,exploringtheconceptsandargumentssurroundingpersonhoodandindividualcapacity
tomakedecisionsandthustovote(Applebaum,BonnieandKarlawish2005;Vorhaus2005).
Otherworksareanecdotalaccountsorindividualcasesofexperiences,oftencapturedin
newspaperstories,whileothersreportresultsfrominterviews,focusgroupsorsurveys,anda
fewstudiesarecomparativeanalysesoflegislationandpolicymeasures.Section6.3ofthis
reportoffersfurtherdiscussiononthemethodologicalfeaturesoftheliteratureunderreview.
Theliteraturealsodiffersaccordingtowhichimpairmentorgroupofimpairmentsisaddressed.
Manystudies,accordingtoRedley(2008),concentrateonpeoplewithphysicalimpairments,
whetherspinalcordinjuries(Schur1998),visualimpairmentsandblindness(Harrington1999)
orothermobilityandsensorylimitations(Scope2010a).Thereare,however,anumberof
worksthatexaminepeoplewithvariouscognitiveimpairments,suchasAlzheimersdiseaseand
dementia,andintellectualordevelopmentaldisabilities.Oneillustrationofthisstreamof
writing,whichdatesbacktothe1970s,centresonpeoplewithlearningdisabilitiesthevoting
behaviourofthoselivingininstitutions;theirpoliticalvaluesandlevelsofpoliticalknowledge;
issuesofgettingtopollingstationsandovercomingbarrierstoparticipation;andmeasuringthe
levelofvoterregistrationandturnout,notingtheirrelativeunderrepresentationatthepolls
(Bell,McKayandPhillips2001;Keeleyetal.2008).
Reportsontheaccessibilityofelectoralprocessesandpollingstationsforvoterswith
disabilitiesareproducedbysomeelectoralcommissionsand,intheUK,byanetworkof
disabilityorganizationsinEngland,NorthernIreland,ScotlandandWales.Acrossthesestudies
anarrayofcommonbarriersandmorespecificchallengesemergeasobstaclestoelectoral
participation,whichwillbediscussedinmoredetailbelow.Althoughthereisastrongemphasis
ondocumentingbarriers,somestudiesalsoconsidersolutionsandidentifypromisingpractices
forboostingcivicengagementbyelectorswithdisabilities.

3.1. VoterTurnoutandAttitudesTowardtheElectoralProcess
Mostempiricalresearchonthevotingturnoutofelectorswithdisabilities,andhowthoserates
comparewiththegeneralvotingagepopulation,hasbeenundertakenintheUSoverthepast
15to20yearsbyahandfulofscholars.Therearealsosomestudiesofvoterturnoutbypeople
withdisabilitiesintheUKaswellasafewofelectoralparticipationinothernations,for
instanceCanada(McColl2006).Accordingly,thediscussionthatfollowsdrawsprimarilyfrom
theresearchfromtheUS,unlessotherwisenoted.
Academicworksonthetopicofattitudes,disabilityandelectoralparticipationhavetwo
orientations.Oneistoexaminetheviewpointofpeoplewithdisabilitiestowardtheirdisability,
theirlives,peergroups,andtowarddemocracy,policyissuesandpoliticsmoregenerally.The
secondfocusisonthebeliefsandjudgmentsofcaregiversandothersignificantactorslike
17

electoralofficialstowardadultswithdisabilities.Inbothcasesattitudestowardscapacityare
importantbecausetheyreflectourviewsoncitizenship(Redley,HughesandHolland2010,
341).

3.1.1.TheInternationalExperience
Inbroadterms,researchshowsthatcomparedwiththegeneralpopulationofeligiblevoters,
adultswithdisabilitiesare:

lesslikelytoberegisteredtovote,althoughtheextentofthegapmaywellvaryacross
jurisdictionsandelections(Keeleyetal.2008;Redley2008;USCensusBureau2011);

lesslikelytovote,evenwithsimilardemographiccharacteristics(SchurandKruse2000;
Schuretal.2002);

morelikelytovotebyabsenteeballot(Schuretal.2002,176);

morelikelytoreportsomedifficultiesingettingtothepolls,usingaballotandvoting(Schur
etal.2002);and

underrepresentedatthepollsandhavecomparativelylowpoliticalinvolvement(Schur
etal.2002,168).

Inareviewoffivestudiesofvoterturnoutratesamongpeoplewithdisabilities,inthree
differentelectionyearsintheUS,theturnoutrateofelectorswithaphysicalormental
disabilitywas14to21percentagepointslowerthanthatofelectorswithoutdisabilitieswho
otherwisehavecomparabledemographicqualities(Schuretal.2002;seealsoPrince2009).
Withintheoveralldisabilitypopulationinajurisdictionornation,voterturnoutratesamong
electorswithdisabilitiescandiffer.Intheirnationalsurvey,Schurandassociates(2002)found
greatvariationinelectoralparticipationamongthe700peoplewithdisabilitiestheysurveyed.4
Specifically,theyfoundthatalowerturnoutisconcentratedamongpeoplewithdisabilities
whoarenotemployed,whoareage65orolder,whohavedifficultygoingoutsidealone,who
haveamentalimpairmentthatimpactsmemoryandconcentration,andwhohavearecent
onsetofasignificantdisability.Therelationbetweenageandvotingturnoutamongadultswith
andwithoutdisabilitiesisworthnotinghere.Schurandassociatesfoundfromtheiranalysis
that:
Whilevoterturnoutrisesstronglywithageinthegeneralpopulation,itrisesonly
weaklywithageinthedisabilitypopulation,andbeginsdecreasingataboutage
55.Theresultisthatvoterturnoutisonlyslightlydepressedamongyoung
4

Tostatisticallyexaminedisabilityandvoterturnout,thequantitativedataforthisstudycomefromanationally
representativeandrandomhouseholdtelephonesurveyof1,240people,followingtheNovember1998elections
intheUS.Ofthesamplesurveyed,540werepeoplewithoutdisabilitiesand700werepeoplewithdisabilities,an
oversampletheresultofastratifiedsample.Theauthorsofthisstudynotethatregressionsincludedweightsto
adjustfortheoversamplingtoensurethatcoefficientsrepresentedthebestestimatesofhowvariablesarerelated
tovotinginthegeneralpopulation.

18

peoplewithdisabilities,andmorestronglydepressedamongolderpeoplewith
disabilities(2002,172).
Infact,theseresearchersremarkthatvoterturnoutforpeoplewithdisabilitiesdrops
dramaticallyoverage65(Schuretal.2002,180).Thisfindingcertainlyqualifiestheusualview
inelectionstudiesandinconventionalwisdomthatvoterturnoutincreaseswithincreasesin
age.5
DatafromtheUSelectioninNovember2010revealthefollowingonreportedvotingand
registrationamongAmericancitizensbydisabilitystatus.Amongcitizenswhoreportedvoter
registration,theratewas65.3percentforthosewithnodisabilityand64.1percentforthose
withoneormoredisability.Ofthosewhovotedinthe2010elections,45.9percentwere
citizenswithnodisability,while42.8percentwerecitizenswithadisability.Amongthosewitha
disabilitywhovoted,thehighestturnoutratewasbypeoplewithhearingdifficulties(50.0
percent)andthelowestvoterrate(29.6percent)wasbypeoplewithcognitivedifficulties;that
is,individualswithserioustroubleconcentrating,rememberingormakingdecisionsbecauseof
aphysical,mentaloremotionalcondition(USCensusBureau2011,Table6).
Somestudiesthatexaminevoterturnoutprovideinformationonmorespecificdynamicsat
playinelectoralparticipationamongpeoplewithdisabilities.ResearchintheUKrevealsthat
adultswithalearningdisabilityaremorelikelytovoteiftheyliveinaprivatehouseholdthanin
asupportedaccommodationfacility;andaremorelikelytovoteiftheyliveinaplacewhere
anotheradultvoted,inotherwords,livingincloseproximitytoatleastoneotheractivevoter
(Redley2008,380).UnitedResponse,anationalcharityintheUKforpeoplewithlearning
disabilities,mentalhealthneedsandphysicaldisabilities,reportsthatonly16percentofthe
peopletheysupportusedtheirvoteinthe2005generalelection,comparedwithanational
averageturnoutof59percentforthegeneralpopulation.UnitedResponseconcludedthat
approximately500,000peoplewithlearningdisabilitieswhowereeligibletovotefailedtodo
so(Sayer2010;UnitedResponse2010).
AnAmericanstudyofpeoplewithspinalcordinjuriesfoundthatthosewhowerehighly
politicallyactiveamongthisgroupweremorelikelytobemarried,tohaveacollegeor
universitydegreeandbecurrentlyemployed(Schur1998).Astudyofpatientswithdementia
whovotedinthe2000USpresidentialelectionfoundthatasubstantialportionofpatients
withmildtomoderatedementiavotedontheirownatavotingbooth.Patientscaredforby
spousesweremorelikelytovotethanpatientscaredforbyadultchildren(Karlawishetal.
2002,1100;seealsoHendersonandDrachman2002;Ott,HeindelandPapandonatos2003).
Andsomeofthosewhovotedhadseveredementia.Onthefindingthatpatientscaredforby

Dataonelectoralparticipationratesin2004forAustralia,Canada,GermanyandtheUSshowthatvoting
participationinall[these]countriesincreaseswithageuntilaboutageseventyfiveandbeginstodecline
thereafter.Ingeneral,politicalengagementofoldervotersappearstobeacrossnationalphenomenon
(KarlawishandBonnie2007,906).

19

spousesweremorelikelytovotethanpatientscaredforbyadultchildren,theresearchers
suggestthat:
Differencesintherelationshipmayexplainthisfinding.Aspousesrelationship
withthepersonwhohasdementiaislongstandingandintimate.Moreover,
unlikeanadultchild,spousalcaregiversarelikelytohavefewercommitmentsto
otherpeoplesuchaschildrenandtoothertaskssuchasajob.Asaresult,they
maybemorelikelytounderstandtheirspouseswishesandhavethetimeto
assisthimorherinfulfillingthosewishes(Karlawishetal.2002,1102).
TheAmericanstudyofpeoplewithspinalcordinjuriesbySchur(1998),mentionedabove,also
examinesthepsychologyofpoliticalparticipationamongpeoplewhoarepoliticalactivistsand
nonactivists.6Morespecifically,thestudyexplorestheconnectionsamongpolitical
involvement,locusofcontrol,personalefficacy,experiencesofstigmaanddiscrimination,and
viewsofdisability(Schur1998,4).Thestudyfoundthatamongthenonactivists,factors
discouragingpoliticalparticipation,includingtheactofvoting,wereisolation,decreased
resources,effortstonormalizeoneselfandbedistantfromotherswithdisabilities,anda
focusonselfhelpfollowingthespinalcordinjury(SCI).Incontrast,politicalactivistshadlived
withtheirinjuriesforalongertimeonaverageandthereforehadmoreopportunitytocome
totermswithSCI,joindisabilitygroups,learnaboutdisabilityissues,andgothroughagradual
processofpoliticization(Schur1998,4).Moreover,inpartbecauseofthispoliticalwork:
Activistsaremorelikelytoperceivediscriminationandstigmaandtoexpressa
greatersenseofpoliticalcontrolandefficacy.Theirexperiencesshowthatsocial
contextandcircumstancesareimportantinwhobecomespoliticallyactive,
indicatingthatoutreachpoliciesofdisabilityorganizationscanplayalargerrole
increatingconditionsthatencouragepoliticalparticipation(Schur1998,4).
Thus,certainconditionsappeartodiscourageelectoralparticipation,andotherconditions
supportparticipation.Schurconcludesthatwhiledisabilityaddsnewconstraints[forpeople
whoacquireanimpairmentotherthanatbirth],manypeoplewhohaveneverparticipatedin
politicscouldbecomeactiveifgiventheopportunity,information,andsocialcontextthat
encouragepoliticalengagement(1998,26).Formanysocialmovements,electoral
participationistheleadingexpressionofdemocraticcitizenshipandthus,forthedisability
community,anexemplarofinclusionandsocialbelongingmoregenerally.
ABritisharticleonpeoplewithlearningdisabilitiesandvotingparticipationstatesthatin
schools,childrenwithlearningdisabilitiesrarelyreceiveciviceducationandpoliticalknowledge

Thisarticleisdistinguishedmethodologicallybythemixtureofquantitativeandqualitativeresearchmethods
employed.Schur(1998)explores64peoplewithspinalcordinjuryusingindepthqualitativeinterviews
supplementedwithquestionnairedatafrommostofthepeopleinterviewed.Thisisanillustrationofan
empiricallybasedexploratorystudyinvotingstudies.Inanalyzingthecollecteddata,thestudyalsodrawson
conceptsandtheoreticalmodelsfoundinthepoliticalscienceanddisabilitystudiesliterature.

20

onvotingandtraininginmockelections,aswouldotherstudents(Bell,McKayandPhillips
2001).7ThesamestudyobservesthatItmayalsobesaidbysomethatpeoplewithlearning
disabilitiesshownointerestinpolitics.Thiscanalsobesaidofalargesectionofthe
populationyetwestilleducateandinformpeopleingeneraloftheirrighttovote(Bell,McKay
andPhillips2001,126).Inasimilarfashion,anAmericanstudypointsoutthatRestrictionson
accesstotheballotboxalsosenddisenfranchisedcitizensamessageaboutthelimitedvalue
giventotheiropinionsbythebroadersociety(Karlawishetal.2008,66).
Attitudestowardpeoplewithdisabilitiesingeneral,andmorespecificallytowardanindividual
withaparticularimpairment,arewidelynotedintheliteratureasabarriertotheregistration
andparticipationofelectorswithdisabilities.Thepracticeofvotingbypeoplewithlearning
disabilitiesmayberestrictedmorebytheattitudesofthecarestaffwhomayholdtheviewthat
thosewithlearningdisabilitiescouldnotunderstandtheissues,andtherefore,shouldnotbe
allowedtomakeachoice(Bell,McKayandPhillips2001,126).IntheUK,withrespecttovoting
bypeoplewithadisability,researchongeneralelectionsinthe1990sshowedthatinaccurate
informationisoftenheldbyhospitalstaffabouttherightsandprocessesofvotingforthose
withmentalhealthproblemsorlearningdisabilities(Bell,McKayandPhillips2001,125).
AstudyofmunicipalelectionsinPhiladelphiaandtheparticipationbyresidentsinnursing
homesandassistedlivingsettingsrevealedthatstaffinthesefacilitiesexercisedsubstantial
controlovervoterrights,registrationandaccesstoapollingplacebyresidentsaged65yearsor
olderwithcognitiveand/orphysicaldisabilities(Karlawishetal.2008).8Theresearchers
concludedthatinacitywithnoguidelinesforvotinginlongtermcare,electionofficialsplayed
alimitedrole,andaccesstothepollsislargelydeterminedbythepolicies,practices,and
attitudesofthelongtermcarestaff,typicallysocialworkersoractivitiesdirectors(Karlawish
etal.2008,7374).Anotherstudycautionsthattheelderlyarealsoatparticularriskofbeing
excludedfromvotingduetoinsensitivitybycaregiversorelectoralofficialswhomayassume
incorrectlythatelderlyvoterswithdisabilitiesareuninterestedinvotingorincapableofdoing
so(KarlawishandBonnie2007,882).

Theauthorsofthisstudyareaclinicalpsychologist,asolicitorandahealthcareofficial,allbasedintheUK.The
articlecitesafewresearchstudies,byothers,ontheattitudesandknowledgeofhospitalstaffaboutthevoting
rightsforpeoplewithmentalhealthconditionsorlearningdisabilities,followingthe1992generalelectioninthe
UK.Themainpurposeofthearticle,however,istoclarifytheauthorizedandrightfulsituationofpeoplewith
learningdisabilitieswhowishtovote.Inthisregard,drawingontheirownprofessionalexperience,theauthors
applyalegalanalysistothetopic,examiningthelegislation,proceduresandrulesgoverningelections,payingclose
attentiontothestatutory,social,environmentalandinformationalbarrierstoelectoralparticipationforthisgroup
ofdisabledpeople.
8

Thisisamongthemorerigorousstudiesreviewed.Ofapossible84eligiblelongtermcarefacilitiescaringfor
people65yearsorolderinthisAmericancity,51facilitiesparticipatedinatelephonesurvey(61percentresponse
rate)immediatelyafterthecitymunicipalelectionsofNovember2003.Oftheparticipatingfacilities,31were
nursinghomesand20wereassistedlivingresidences;overall,twothirdswerenotforprofitagencies,theothers
werebusinessenterprises.Thesurveysolicitedinformationonbothintervieweeandsitecharacteristics.No
significantdifferenceswerefoundbetweentheprofitandnotforprofitsites.Numericdatawereanalyzedusing
summarydescriptivestatisticsandFishersexacttestofsignificanceforspecificassociationsbetweenvariables.

21

3.1.2.TheCanadianExperience
InoneofthefewempiricalCanadianstudies,MaryAnnMcColl(2006)comparestheelectoral
participationofdisabledpeoplewiththepopulationasawhole,usingdatafromthe1997
CanadianElectionSurvey.Thoughsomewhatdated,thissurveyissuperiortomorerecentones,
accordingtoMcColl,becauseitincludedadisabilityfilterquestionandofferedamore
representativedisabledsample.Thesurveycontactedparticipantstwice,onceduringthe
federalelectioncampaignthatyear,andthenasecondtime,eightweeksaftertheelection.In
herreport,McCollexaminesthreetopics:howdisabledpeopleinCanadaparticipateinthe
electoralprocess;howtheydifferfromthebalanceoftheelectorateonspecificissues;and
whatfactorsaffecttheirelectoralparticipation.
OnhowdisabledpeopleinCanadaparticipateintheelectoralprocess,McCollsanalysisfound
thatthosewhoidentifiedthemselvesashavingalongtermdisabilityorhandicapexpresseda
relativelyhigherlevelofintentiontovote(82vs.76percent)thanthenondisabledcomparison
group,andthenofactuallyvotinginthatfederalgeneralelection(90vs.82percent).Itshould
benotedthatalltheseresponseratesarewellabovetheactualvotingturnoutforthatfederal
election.Intriguingly,McCollalsofoundthatdisabledelectorswerelesssatisfiedwiththe
workingofCanadiandemocracy.Onhowdisabledelectorsdifferfrom,orcomparewiththe
balanceoftheelectorateonaseriesofspecificissues,itwasfoundthatkeepingelection
promisesandreducingthefederalgovernmentsdeficitwereaboutequallyimportanttoboth
groups.Atthesametime,protectingsocialprogramsandfightingcrimeweresignificantlymore
importantfordisabledvotersthannondisabledvoters.InthewordsofMcColl:Boththese
issuessuggestthatpeoplewithdisabilitieslivewithahighdegreeofawarenessoftheir
vulnerabilityinbothaprivateandapublicway.Theyareawarethattheyarepotentially
vulnerableintheirprivatelivestovictimizationatthehandsofcriminals,andthattheyare
vulnerableinamorepublicwaytochangesinthesocialsafetynetthatwouldleavethem
withoutneededservices(2006,238).
ThethirdtopicMcCollexaminedwasfactorsaffectingtheelectoralparticipationofcitizenswith
andwithoutdisabilities.Morespecifically,sheaddressedwhatreasonspeoplegaveforwhy
theyhadnotvotedinthe1997federalelection.Perhapsnotsurprisingly,farmoredisabled
citizensthannondisabledcitizenssaidtheyfailedtovoteduetoillness(19.4vs.4.0percent).
Relativelymoredisabledcitizensalsosaidtheydidnotvotebecausetheydidnotknowwhoto
votefor,comparedwithnondisabledcitizens(16.1vs.11.8percent).Ontheotherhand,for
nondisabledcitizens,notablereasonsgivenfornotvotingatthatfederalelectionwere
cynicismabouttheelectoralprocessorcandidates(24.0vs.6.5percent)andbeingtoobusy
(14.6vs.6.5percent).Amongotherpoints,McCollconcludedthatthereisarolefordisability
organizationsinenhancingthedemocraticparticipationoftheirmembers,andactualizingthe
disabilityvoteonimportantissues(2006,238).

22

TheNationalYouthSurvey(MalatestandAssociates2011)commissionedbyElectionsCanada
providesresearchfindingsonvotingbehaviourbyCanadianyouthaged18to34.9Thestudy
includesinformationonyouthingeneralaswellasprofilesonfivesubgroups,oneofwhichis
youthwithdisabilities.10
Intermsofelectoralparticipationsincebecomingeligibletovote,oftheyouthinthenational
sample,about46percentsaidtheywerehabitualvoters,while20percentwerefrequent
voters,21percentwereoccasionalvotersand13percentwerehabitualnonvoters.Closeto
threequarters(74percent)saidtheyhadvotedintheMay2011generalelection,wellabove
theoverallturnoutrateof61.4percentforvotersofallages.Asthesurveyreportindicates,
however,surveysconsistentlyoverestimateparticipationwhencomparedtodataonvoter
turnout(Malatest2011,1).Participationinthe2011electionbyyouthwithdisabilities,at55
percent,waslessthantheoverallvotingratereportedinthenationalrandomsample.Thus,
youthwithadisabilityarelesslikelytovotethanyouthwithoutdisabilitiesinCanada.

Thestudyconsistedofatelephonesurveyofanationalrandomsampleof1,372youth,withanestimated
responserateof34percent.Anadditional1,293interviewsweredonewithyouthfromsubgroupsrecruited
throughpurposivemethods.Assamplingforthesubgroupswasnotrandomlyselected,theyouthinterviewedare
notnecessarilyrepresentativeofyouthinthesesubgroups.
10

TheothersubgroupsareAboriginalyouth,ethnoculturalyouth,unemployedyouthnotinschoolandyouth
residinginruralareas.

23

Factorsassociatedwithvotinginthe2011federalelectionwerefoundtobeeducation,older
age,increasedmotivation,increasedpoliticalknowledgeandwhatthereportcallsincreased
exposuretopoliticalinfluencersthatis,influencebyfamilymembers,friendsandpeers;the
media,especiallyTV;anddirectcontactwithapoliticalpartyorcandidate.Reasonsforvoting
byyouthwithdisabilitiesincludedthegeneralattitudesthatitisimportanttovote;itisacivic
dutytovote;anditisapersonsright.Inaddition,intermsofaninterestinpolitics,youthwith
disabilitiesmostlikelyindicatedthattheyvotedinordertosupportoropposeapoliticalparty
ratherthanaspecificcandidateorcertainissues.Thispatternofreasonsisgenerally
comparabletootheryouthsubgroups.
Whencomparedwiththenationalrandomsample,inwhich70percentofyouthsaidtheywere
satisfiedorverysatisfiedwiththewaydemocracyworksinCanada,only54percentofyouth
withdisabilitiesweresatisfiedorverysatisfied.Again,othersubgroups,notablyAboriginaland
unemployedyouth,similarlyholdlesspositiveviewstowardpoliticsanddemocracythanthe
overallyouthpopulation.Ethnoculturalandruralyouthholdrelativelymorepositiveattitudes
towardpolitics,closetothenationalaverage.
Noteworthypredictorsofyouthnotvotinginthegeneralelectionwerelowincome,lackof
interestintheelection,andfeelingyouwouldnotbewelcomeatthepollingstation.Foryouth
withdisabilities,characteristicsoflowparticipationincludedbeinglessknowledgeableabout
politics,notreceivingaVoterInformationCard(VIC),apersonallackofinterestinpoliticsand
lessinfluencebyfamily.Comparedwiththenationalrandomsampleofyouth,feweryouthwith
disabilities(64vs.78percent)saidtheytalkedaboutpoliticsandgovernmentathomewhen
growingup.Youthwithdisabilities,alongwithAboriginalyouthandunemployedyouth,were
alsomostlikelyamongthesubgroups,andcomparedwiththenationalsample,tobelievethey
wouldfeelunwelcomeatapollingstation.ThisfitswiththelesspositiveviewofCanadian
politicsanddemocracyheldbyyouthinthesesubgroups.

1.3.

3.2.BarriersFacedbyElectorswithDisabilities

Fivetypesofbarriersconfrontpeoplewithdisabilitieswhocouldorwanttovoteinelections.
Bycharacteristics,thesebarriers,innoimpliedorderofimportanceforelectors,are
architecturalandphysical;attitudinalandcultural;informationalandcommunication;legaland
policy;andthoserootedinthesocioeconomicstatusofmanypeoplelivingwithdisabilities.All
thesebarrierscanberegardedassocietalaspectsofexclusions,whichhavetheeffectof
markingpeoplewithdisabilitiesofffromotherelectors,marginalizingthemasasocialgroup
andrenderingmanyasabsentcitizens(Prince2009).
Architecturalandphysicalbarriersinthebuiltenvironmentremainatopicofconcernamong
academics,disabilityorganizationsandelectoralcommissions(Ward,BakerandMoon2009).In
theMay2010generalelectionintheUK,visitstooverathousanddifferentpollingstationsin
almost400parliamentaryconstituenciesthroughoutEngland,Scotland,WalesandNorthern
Irelandfoundthat67percentofpollingstationshadoneormoresignificantaccessbarriersto
disabledvoters.Thisrepresentsjusta1percentagepointimprovementfromthelastGeneral
Election(68percent)and2percentagepointsfromtheGeneralElectionof2001(69percent)
24

(Scope2010a,8).Athemeintheliteratureisthataccessbarriersvarybytypeofimpairment.As
aBritishpoliticianobserves,Whilephysicalaccessforthoseofusinwheelchairshasbeen
improvingoverrecentyears(Iacceptitisnotyetperfecteverywhere),itisstilldifficultfor
peoplewithavisualimpairment,learningdisabilityormotorlimitations(Scope2010a,5).
Attitudinalandculturalbarriersrefermostfrequentlytothebeliefs,assumptionsandactionsor
inactionsofelectionofficialswhendealingwithpeoplewithdisabilities(Harrington1999;
Redley,HughesandHolland2010;SchrinerandBatavia2001).TheyrelatetowhatWard,Blake
andMoon(2009,84)calltheactionsorsociopsychologicalenvironmentprovidedbypolling
andelectionofficialsandelectionworkers.Theseacademicsadd,Forthisreason,attention
hasbeguntoturntothesortsofproblemspeoplewithdisabilitiesencounterintheir
interactionswithpollworkersandotherlocalelectionofficials(Ward,BlakeandMoon2009,
80).11
Restrictiveattitudesaboutthevotingcapacityandrightsofpeoplewithdisabilitiesasheldby
familymembers,caregiversorprofessionalstaffinsupportedlivingsettingshasalreadybeen
noted.TheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommonsinBritainidentifiessomeoftheeffectsofthese
prejudicialattitudesasfollows:Many[disabledpeople]areleftwithafeelingofbeing
disenfranchisedbecauseofthevariousbarrierstheyfaceinexercisingtheirrighttovote.This,
togetherwiththeunderrepresentationofdisabledpeopleinallareasofpublicandpolitical
life,sendsaclearmessagethatprogressmustbeaccelerated(Scope2010a,4).
Informationalandcommunicationbarriersincludesuchproblemsascitizensnotknowing
wheretoregistertovoteorthelocationofpollingplaces,theinstructionsthataccompanya
ballotbeingconfusingandcomplicatedandmailinballotsforpostalvotingbeingdifficultto
markandfoldintotheenvelopesprovided.AsaBritishreportobserves,theseproblemsderive
fromthefactthatOurelectoralsystemwasnotdesignedwithdisabledpeopleinmindandin
thisinherentlyinaccessiblesystemfewalternativewaysofcastingtheballotareoffered
(Scope2010a,8).AnothertopicalreportinBritainonpeoplewithlearningdisabilitiesidentified
threekeybarrierstothedemocraticprocess:thelowawarenessoftherightsofpeoplewith
learningdisabilitiestovote;thecomplexityoftheelectoralsystem;andthelackofeasyto
understandinformationaboutcandidatesandpartyplatformsonpolicies(UnitedResponse
2010).OtherreportsandarticlesreachsimilarconclusionsintheUK(Bell,McKayandPhillips
2001;Redley2008)andtheUS(Harrington1999;Ward,BakerandMoon2009).Theresult
producedbysuchbarriersisaformofcivicilliteracy(Milner2002).
Legalandpolicybasedandproceduralbarriersareanothertypeofstumblingblockelectors
withdisabilitiesfaceindemocraticnations(Bell,McKayandPhillips2001;Redley2008).
CurrentresearchbydisabilityorganizationsinBritainfindsthat:

11

ThisstudybyWardandassociates(2009)isprimarilyanoverviewofliteratureonissuesthataffecthowpeople
withdisabilitiesvote.Specifically,thearticlesurveysissuesoflegislationandpolicy,disabilityactivism,
implementationoflaws,courtdecisions,electronicvotingmethods,anddataonvoterswithdisabilitiesintheUS

25

Whilstlegislation[theMentalCapacityAct2005,andElectoralAdministration
Act2006]andguidancehavecreatedtheimpetusforsignificantimprovement,
morerecentexperienceshowsthattheimplementationandenforcementofthis
onthegroundfallsshort.Thisresultedinmanydisabledpeople,in2010,being
unabletocasttheirvotewithoutassistanceandinsecret.Forsomeitmeantthat
theywereunabletovoteatallorcouldnotverifythattheirvotehadbeencast
andcounted(Scope2010a,8).
Relatedtoissuesofimplementationandenforcementisthematterofconstrainedpublic
budgetsforelectoralservices,stretchingstaffandreducingtheabilitytorespondinatimely
mannertovotersneeds(Scope2010a).LiteratureintheUSexaminesthelegislativemeasures
enactedtopromotetheequalenfranchisementofadultswithdisabilities,includingnational
votingrightslawsinthe1980sand1990s,votingaccessibilityfortheelderlyandthe
handicappedinthe1980s,andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990andamendedin
2008.Theimpactofthisseriesoflegislationaspolicy,assummarizedbythreeAmerican
scholars,emphasizesdifficultiesinimplementation.
By2000,theendofacenturyinwhichCongressandtheSupremeCourthadtakendecisive
measurestocurtailvotingdiscriminationbecauseofrace,sexandclass,thefederal
governmenthadtakenonlybeginningstepstowardeliminatingbarrierstovotingbypeople
withdisabilities.
despitelegislationdesignedtocurtailbothovertandimplicitdiscrimination
againstpeoplewithdisabilities,anumberoflegislativeandpolicyissues
regardingvotinghavepersistedintotheearly21stcentury.Inpart,someissues
remainbecausedisabilitylegislationhasnotconsistently,andaffirmatively,
addressedvotingpractices.Otherissuesremainbecauseoftheinabilityor
unwillingnessoflocalgovernmentstocarryoutfederalmandates(Ward,Baker
andMoon2009,8081;seealsoSchrinerandBatavia2001;Schriner,Ochsand
Shields2000).
Barriersrootedinthesocioeconomicstatusofmanypeoplelivingwithdisabilitiesreferto
economicformsofinequalityanddisadvantage.Thesematerialbarriersaredemonstratedby
thesubstantiallydisproportionateratesofunemployment,lowerlevelsofeducational
attainment,lowincomeandrisksofpovertyofpeoplewithdisabilitiescomparedwithpeople
withoutdisabilitiesinallthesecountries.Persistentandextensiveunemployment,widespread
dependenceonwelfareandfrequentlyexperiencedstigmaandsocialexclusionareserious
obstaclestoencourageelectoralparticipation.ResearchintheUSindicatesthatthevoter
turnoutofemployedworkingagepeoplewithdisabilitiesisalmostidenticaltothatof
otherwisesimilarpeoplewithoutdisabilities(Schuretal.2002,180).
Anotherthemerelatedtobarriers,butfarlessexaminedintheliterature,concernsthebarriers
facedbyfamilymembers,caregiversorprofessionalstaffinsupportedlivingsettingsthe
difficultiesorhindrancestheyfaceinsupportingindividualswithsignificantdisabilitiesin

26

exercisingtheirdemocraticcitizenship.JoanOSullivan(2001)offerssomeinsightsinherstudy
ofnursinghomeresidentsandadministrators:
Administratorsmustfollowextensiveregulatoryguidelinesforrunningthe
nursinghome,andoftendonothavethetimetoensurethatresidentshavethe
opportunitytovote.Providinggoodqualitycare,keepingfrontlineworkersfully
staffed,andmanagingthemanytasksinvolvedinrunningaqualitynursinghome
mayputvotinglowonthelistofpriorities(2001,345).
Whatmadeadifferenceinthenursinghomesandassistedlivingcentressurveyedby
OSullivanwastheinitiativeoflocalelectionofficials,andteamsoflocalvolunteers,in
providinginformationpacketstotheadministratorswithadviceonhelpingresidentstovotein
anelection.12
Twoadditionalissuesdiscussedintheliteratureondisabilityandelectoralparticipationdeserve
briefmention.Oneissueconcernsthequestionofvotingandthementalcapacityofpeople
withcognitiveimpairmentsand,thewidertrend,ofvotingbyagingcitizenswhofacesome
levelofcognitiveimpairmentorotherbrainimpairment(SabatinoandSpurgeon2007,843).
TherearenumerousarticlesaboutvotingandpeoplewithAlzheimersdisease,peoplewith
intellectualorlearningdisabilitiesandpeoplewithothercognitiveimpairments,suchas
multiplesclerosis,strokes,traumaticbraininjury,ParkinsonsdiseaseandHuntingtonsdisease.
MostofthesewritingscomefromtheUS(Appelbaum2000;Appelbaum,BonnieandKarlawish
2005;HendersonandDrachman2002;HurmeandAppelbaum2007;Karlawishetal.2002;
Karlawishetal.2004;Karlawishetal.2008;Ott,HeindelandPapandotos2003;Schrinerand
Ochs2000)andtheUK(Bell,McKayandPhillips2001;Keeleyetal.2008;Redley2008;Redley,
HughesandHolland2010;Vorhaus2005).Someofthisworkisphilosophicalinnature;other
workfocusesonpoliticalrights(muchisclinicalinorientation)andtestsassessmenttoolsof
electoralcapacitybymeasuring,forexample,appreciationandreasoningaboutvotingchoices.
KarlawishandBonnie(2007)offeracomparativediscussiononAustralia,GermanyandCanada
whichistouchedonlater.
Ofthecountriesreviewedforthisreport,Australia,NewZealand,theUS,andtheUKhave
someformofmentalcapacityexclusions,althoughthelegalrestrictionsintheUKwerenotably
easedwiththepassageoflegislationin2005(Redleyetal.2010).Canadastandsoutatthe

12

OSullivan(2001)surveyedlongtermcarefacilitiesintwojurisdictionsintheAmericanstateofMaryland.In
eachjurisdiction,42residentswereinterviewed;eachinterviewlastedabout10minutes.Thosechosenfor
interviewscouldmaketheirownhealthdecisionsandwerenotunderguardianship.Also,interviewswereheld
withstaffatthenursinghomeswhoadministerelections.OneofthejurisdictionsusedtheBoardofElections
procedureandtheotherdidnot.Nursinghomesselectedincludedthoseinpoorerneighbourhoodsaswellasin
upscaleareas.Thearticleprovidesinformationonthesocioeconomicstatusoftherespondentsaswellasthe
interviewquestionsused.Whiledescriptivestatisticsarereported,thereisnoelaboratequantitativeanalysisof
thedata.Thearticledoesincludeareviewoffederallawsandpolicies,andcaselaw,inregardstotherighttovote
byAmericanswithdisabilities.

27

nationallevelasnothavingexplicitlegislativerestrictionsonvotingwithrespecttomental
capacity.
MostremarkableisCanadasabsenceofanyexclusiononmentalincapacity.
IncapacitydoesnotappeartobeacontroversialissueinCanada,perhaps
becausethoselackingcapacitysimplytendnottovote,andperhapsbecauseof
thegreaterattentionpaidtoprovidinginformation,education,andaccessibility
servicestopersonswhohavecognitiveorphysicaldisabilities,personswith
limitedreadingandwritingskill,andpersonslivingintransitionalsituations
(SabatinoandSpurgeon2007,848).13
SabatinoandSpurgeon,Americanspecialistsinlawandaging,addthattheCanadian
experiencemaysuggestthatminimizing,andeveneliminating,theexclusionfromvotingbased
onincapacitymayindeedbeaviableoptionforconsideration(2007,848).
Asecondissueconcernstheroleofdisabilityorganizationsinpoliticalsocialization,recruitment
andengagement;inthiscontext,inaskingpersonswithdisabilitiestojoinagrouporpolitical
party,toregistertovote,tolearnaboutpublicissues,tovolunteerinacampaign,torunasa
candidateandtovoteinelections(SchrinerandShields1998;Wardetal.2009).Inherstudyof
peoplewithspinalcordinjuries,Schur(1998,4)showedthatoutreachpoliciesofdisability
organizationscanplayalargeroleincreatingconditionsthatencouragepoliticalparticipation.
ArelatedarticlebySchrinerandShields(1998)observesthatmostdisabilityactivisminUShas
tendedtotargetspecificpublicpolicyissuesandcurrentelectedrepresentatives,ratherthan
culturalattitudesaboutpeoplewithdisabilitiesorincreasingvoterparticipation.This
observationmaynotbesotruetodayinthewaydisabilityactivismoperatesinCanadaand
perhapsothernations.
Schurandassociates(2002)likewisenotethatdisabilityserviceagenciesandadvocacygroups
canserveasrecruitmentnetworksforpeoplewithdisabilitiestobecomepoliticallyaware
andactiveinelectionsandotherformsofdemocraticcitizenship.Wardandothers(2009,82)
supportthebeliefthatdisabilityserviceproviderscanactaseffectiveadvocatesforpeople
withdisabilities.Suchprovidersarecapableofeducatingelectionandpollofficialsandthe
publicandidentifyingbarrierstopollingplacesandsupportingeffortstoovercomethem.

13

Whilethismaybetrue,itshouldnotbeignoredthatbefore1992theCanadaElectionsActwaspreventingthose
withamentaldisabilitytovote.TheActwasamendedfurtherduetocourtcasesbasedontheCharterand
followingrecommendationsfromtheRoyalCommissiononElectoralReformandPartyFinancing.

28

4. VOTINGMETHODS
Votingmethods,andtheirrelationshiptopersonswithdisabilities,canbediscussedintermsof
generalmethodsmadeavailablebyelectoralmanagementbodiesforallelectorsandthen
specificmethodsforelectorswithdisabilitiesandothersocalledspecialneeds.
Theclassic,paradigmaticformofvotingisofregisteredelectorsgoingtopollingstationsin
availablebuildingsonelectiondaytoobservethevotinginstructions,andtocastapaperbased
standardizedballot,readandmarkedbyhandasapersonalact,doneinsecret.
Forallitsdemocraticvirtues,thismodelofvotingparticipationandelectoraladministration
ignoresthediversityofabilitiesanddisabilitiesamongcitizens,aswellaslacksadequate
recognitionandaccommodationofembodieddifferencesandmaterialinequalitiesinthelife
circumstancesofpeople.Indeed,containedinthistraditionaldemocraticparadigmofvotingis
theimageofthenormalvoter,theselfreliantelectorandablebodiedcitizen;animagethat
implicitlyandunintentionally14hasbeenundulyrestrictiveforasubstantialnumberofcitizens
(AmericanFoundationfortheBlind2011;AustralianElectoralCommission2011b;Capability
Scotland2010;East2011;MeekoshaandDowse1997;Weaver2001).

4.1.

InternationalDevelopments

Overtheyears,therefore,inresponsetoclaimsbygroupsforpoliticalcitizenshipandequal
treatment,additionalmethodshavebeenintroducedandavailabletoalleligiblevoters,most
commonlythemethodsofadvancevotingandabsenteevoting,thelatteralsocalledspecial
ballots(votebymail)inCanadaandpostalvotinginsomeotherjurisdictions.IntheUK,absent
orpostalvotingwasintroducedinthelate1940stomeettheneedsofpeoplewithaphysical
incapacity,butthenextended,in2001,toallvoters,regardlessofthekindofimpairmentsor
eveniftheelectordidnothaveadisability.Thislegislativechangeresultedinanincreased
takeupofthepostalballotamongtheUKelectorateinelectionsin2005,althoughaccess
problemswithpostalvotingapparentlypersist.Itisimportanttonote,forthepurposesofthis
report,thatintheUK,postalvotingremainstheonlyrealalternativetotraditionalvoting
availabletoelectorswithdisabilities(Scope2010a,1819,and3234).
IntheUK,disabledvotersareoffered,atleastfromaCanadianperspective,arelativelymodest
arrayofoptionsforvoting.Disabledelectorsareentitledtorequestassistancetomarktheir
ballotpaperbyanimmediatefamilymember,aqualifiedelectororbyapresidingofficer.To
preventelectoralfraud,thenameandelectoralregisternumberofthedisabledpersonand
thecompanionareenteredontoalistbypresidingofficersatthepollingstation(Scope2010a,
15).FollowingchangestotheRepresentationofthePeopleAct2000,regulationsspecifythat

14

Forpeoplewithmentalhealthconditionsandintellectualorcognitiveimpairmentspeoplehistoricallylabelled
asmad,insaneorfeeblemindedtherewere,inmanyjurisdictions,intentionalrestrictionsinlawandpracticeon
therighttovote.

29

tactilevotingdevicesaretobeavailableinelectionstoassistvisuallyimpairedvotersorthose
withlimiteddexteritytomarktheirballotinsecretwithoutthehelpofanotherperson(BBC
News2001;Direct.gov2011).Moreover,largeprintposterversionsoftheballotpaperareto
bepostedatpollingstationsasareferenceforvoterswhentheymarktheregularsizedballot.
WherepollingstationsareinaccessiblewhichremainsasignificantissueinBritishelections
(Scope(2010a)thepresidingofficermaytaketheballottotheelectorortheelectormay
requestapostalvote(ElectoralCommission2008).
Inaddition,recentUKlegislation15allowsforthephasedintroductionofindividualelectoral
registration,inplaceofthetraditionalmethodoftheheadofhouseholdregisteringthe
occupantsoftheirprivatehome.Disabilitygroupsapplaudthemovebutalsoexpressacaution:
Individualregistrationisawelcomestepinimprovingaccesstoelectionsfor
disabledpeople,helpingtopreventdeliberatenonregistrationorvotestealing
bythoseresponsibleforregisteringthem.However,itisessentialthatthenew
systemofregistrationintheUKisdesignedfromtheoutsetwiththeaccess
needsofdisabledpeopleinmind,includingtheabilitytousedifferentidentifiers
whererequired,andtoreceiveregistrationinformationinthealternativeformat
oftheirchoice(Scope2010a,10).
Intheircomparativestudyofelectoralsystems,KarlawishandBonnie(2007,895)found,with
respecttoAustralia,that:
TheAustraliansystemhasbeenreluctanttoadoptballotingtechnologies
differentfromitslongstandinguseofthepencilandpaperballot,suchasballots
inBrailleorcomputerassistedvoting.Inmobilepolling,thisrelianceonthe
paperandpencilballotrequiresfrequentoneononeassistancefortheelderly
voter.TheresultisthatelderlyAustralianshaveaccesstotheballotbutlimits
upontheirabilitytovoteprivately.
InformationfromtheAustralianElectoralCommission(2010a,b)indicatesthatforthe2010
federalelection,electorswhoareblindorhavelowvisionhadtheoptiontocastasecretvote
bytelephonetoaspecialandsecurecallcentre.16Otheralternativevotingoptionsavailablefor
electorswithdisabilitiesinAustralianfederalelectionsincludeanassistedvote,early
(advance)voting,votingbypost(mail)andvotingatamobilepollingstation,whichmayvisit
suchlocationsashospitalsandnursinghomes.InthestateofWesternAustralia,theelectoral
commissiontherehasbeenintroducingarangeofservicesforvoterswithdisabilitiessincethe
mid1990s,followingtheenactmentofdisabilityrightslegislation.Inadditiontomobilepolls

15
16

ThePoliticalPartiesandElectionsAct2009,UnitedKingdomParliament.

Atthe2010federalelections,telephonevotingwasavailablein125locationsacrossAustraliatoallowvoters
whoareblindorhavelowvisiontocastasecretvote.Thisservicewasavailablebeforeandonelectiondayinall
AustraliaElectoralCommissiondivisionalofficesandotherselectedlocations.Votersusingthisservicehadtheir
namemarkedofftheelectoralrollandthencasttheirvoteinprivateoverthephone(PeoplewithDisability2011).

30

andgeneralpollingplaceaccess,theWesternAustraliaElectoralCommission(2011)has
establisheddrivethroughpollingplaces,redesigneddesktopvotingscreens,TTY(telephone
typewriterservice),hardofhearingcountercards,videomagnifiersandCCTV(closedcircuit
TV)screens,amongotherdevices.Otherdevicesincludemagnifyingsheetsatpollingplaces,
triangularpencilsandtherighttoobtainassistancefromanypersonadisabledelectorchooses.
Followingthe2005election,theWesternAustraliaElectoralCommissionconductedasurveyto
assesspeopleslevelofsatisfactionwiththeelectoralservicesofferedbytheCommission.
InNewZealand,allelectorscannominateotherpersonstoassistthemtoreadandmarktheir
votingpaper;voteinadvanceofelectiondayand/orinaplaceotherthanthevotingbooth;and
alsonominateanotherpersontoregisterforthemandvoteontheirbehalfiftheydonothave
thecapacitytounderstandthenatureofthedecisiontoregisterasanelector(NewZealand,
OfficeforDisabilityIssues2011).
IntheUS,itseemsthatamoderaterangeofalternativevotingmethodsareavailableacrossall
50states,whetherforstatewideornationalelections.AsurveyconductedbytheUSGeneral
AccountingOfficefollowingthe2000electionsfoundthatjustoneortwoalternativevoting
methodsoraccommodationsfordisabledvoterswereprovidedinallstates,inparticularfor
peoplewithdisabilitieswhoseassignedpollingplaceswereinaccessible.Allstatesallowfor
absenteevotingwithoutrequiringanotaryormedicalcertification.Itisworthnotingthat
some,butnotall,statesprovideinlaworpolicyforthereassignmenttoapollingplacethatis
accessible.And,some,butnotall,statesprovidecurbsidevoting,earlyvotingorabsentee
votingbymail,andallowballotstobetakentoavotersresidence(USGeneralAccounting
Office2001,67).Insidevotingboothsandpollingplaces,otheraccommodationsforelectors
withdisabilitiesincludevoterassistance,magnifyingdevices,votinginstructionsorsample
ballotsinlargeprint,andBrailleballots.Atthetimeofthissurvey,however,themajorityof
stateshadnostatutoryorregulatoryprovisionsfortheseaccommodationsatpollingstations
(USGeneralAccountingOffice2001,16).
Newelectronictechnologiesforvoterswithphysicalandvisualimpairmentswereintroducedin
severalUSstates,startingwiththe2000electionyear.Inadditiontoopticalscanningmachines
andDirectRecordElectronic(DRE)votingmachines,newermethodsincludeeSlate,alaptop
computerdevice;speechsynthesizers;andatouchscreenvotingmachineinwhichcomputer
screensareresponsivetotouch.Otherspecialvotingmethodsoraidsincludeahumanreader,
audioreadouts,sipandpuffsystems,andapartialBrailleballotinsomeAmerican
jurisdictionsandelections(Howell2011;OSullivan2001;SabatinoandSpurgeon2007).
Acrossthefourothernationssurveyed,electronicandInternetvotingarestillnotwidespread
methodsinelectoralsystems,perhapsexplainedbytheinertiaoftraditionalpractices,andalso
bycautionaboutprivacyissuesandtheoverallsecurityandthusintegrityoftheelectoralrolls
(KarlawishandBonnie2007,899;SabatinoandSpurgeon2007;Schuretal.2002).Australiahas
doneatrialofelectronicvotinginafederalelection(AustralianElectoralCommission2010a).In
theUK,electronicvotingorevotingmethodsofcastingaballotwhichuseaninformation
technologyformattoallowvoterstorecordtheirvotesdigitallywerepilotedinlocaland

31

nationalelectionsbetween2002and2007,toassess,amongotherissues,theiraccessibilityto
disabledvoters.Themajorevotingmethodspilotedwereevotingatkiosks,Internetvoting,
telephonevoting,textmessaginganddigitalTVvotingsystems.TheElectoralCommissionin
Britainexpressedconcernsovertheaccessibilityofthemethodsandsecurityriskstothe
integrityoftheelectionprocess(Scope2010a,1922).Allthecountriesstudiedforthisreport
providearangeofformatsoninformationonvotingfortheblind,deafblindandvision
impairedcommunities(see,forexample,Scope2010a,1415).

4.2.

CanadianDevelopments

WithrespecttotheCanadianelectoralsystem,KarlawishandBonnie(2007,905)observethat:
Canadasinitiativesoverthepasttwodecadesappeartohavesubstantially
enhancedaccesstothepollsforelderlyvoterswithdisabilities.Thesefeatures
includemobilepolling,andsubstantialinnovationinballotdesignandformatting
tomaximizeavotersopportunitytovotewithouttheassistanceofsomeone
else.
Canadassystemhasseveralfeaturesthatreducetheriskoffraud.Mobile
pollingrunbyelectionofficialslimitsthechancethatnursinghomestaffwillco
optorotherwisemanipulateresidentsballots.Limitinganonfamilymemberto
assistingonlyonedisabledvoterandrequiringanoathtodocumentthisalso
reducesthelikelihoodthatapersonaimingtoaffecttheoutcomeofanelection
willbeabletoinfluencethevotesofalargenumberofresidents.
TheseremarksontheCanadianelectoralsystemdrawattentiontomobilepollingstations,
whichinvolvestakingthepollstoavotersplaceofresidence,usuallyaninstitutionalresidence
suchasalongtermcarefacility,hospital,nursinghomeorhomefortheaged.Mobilepollsare
alsousedforprovingvotingaccesstoelectorslivinginremoteandisolatedcommunitiesin
Australia,CanadaandtheUS.Proxyvotingdelegatingonesvotingrighttoanotherspecific
personisanothermethodinuseinafewcountries,whichmaybeofassistancetosome
electorswithdisabilitiesaswellasothervoters.Stillanothermethodused,intheCanadian
contextatleast,isthetransfercertificate,whichallowsapersonwhoisawheelchairuserto
voteatapollingstationwithlevelaccess,ifhisorherownpollingstationisinaccessible(e.g.
duetonarrowdoorwaysandcorridors,steepstairwells,noelevators).
Inadditiontoordinarypollsonelectionday,othergeneralmethodsmadeavailableby
federal/provincial/territorialelectoralmanagementbodiesforelectorsincludeadvancepolls,
mailinorspecialballots,votingathome,votingattheofficeofareturningofficer,mobilepolls
(i.e.travellingpollingstations),transfercertificateand,inthecaseofNunavutandYukon,proxy
voting(ElectionsCanada2010a,47;2011c).
Tobesure,therehasbeensubstantialinnovationinballotdesignandformattingaimedat
enhancingaccessandvotingturnoutbyelectorswithphysicalandmentalimpairments.These
innovationsincludeaudiotactiledevices,audiocassettesaswellasBrailletoenablepeople

32

whoareblindorvisuallyimpairedtovote;differentlanguagesinadditiontoEnglishand
French;DVDandCDdiskettes;largeprintformat;andvotingtemplatesforelectorswitha
visualimpairment.Previously,manypeoplewithvisionlosshadtovotewiththehelpofa
sightedassistant.In2006,withthehelpoftheCanadianNationalInstitutefortheBlind(CNIB)
andothergroups,ElectionsCanadaproducedanewplastictemplatethatwillallowpeoplewith
visionlosstovoteinprivate.Thetoolincludesraisednumbers,Brailleandalargeprintlistof
candidatesnames(CanadianNationalInstitutefortheBlind2011a;2011b).
Inaddition,therearedevelopmentsinrecentyearsintheprovisionofassistivevotingservices
andtechnologiesbothhumansupportsandtechnicalsupportstoelectorswithdisabilities.
Humansupportservicesincludetheoptionofpersonalassistance,providedbyafamily
memberorevenanonfamilymemberorbyanelectionsofficialatthepollingstation,with
registrationandmarkingtheballot.Anotherhumansupportserviceistheavailabilityof
languageorsignlanguageinterpreterservicesonrequest.Inasimilarway,inarecentQuebec
byelection,theprovinceselectoralmanagementbody,theDirecteurgnraldeslectionsdu
Qubec,pilotedaballotpaperwithaphotographofthecandidates,apracticethatwillbe
extendedtogeneralprovincialelections.IntheNorthwestTerritories,providingthe
photographofcandidatesonaballotisalsooneoftheformsofassistanceprovidedtoelectors.
Assistivevotingtechnologiesthatuseequipmentrecentlytriedinsomeprovincialelectionsin
Canadaincludethesipandpufftechnologythatenablesapersonwithaspinalcordinjuryor
othermobilityimpairmentthatdeniesthemtheuseoftheirhandstovote(Adam2011).Atthe
federallevel,ElectionsCanada,havingobtainedparliamentaryapproval,testedanassistive
votingdevice(anautomatedtalkingmachine)duringthefederalbyelectioninWinnipegNorth
inNovember2010.Thedevicespurposeistoassistelectorswithavisualimpairmentandthose
withlowliteracyskills(Owen2010).Electorswhorequiredassistanceandwhoseelectionday
pollingstationdidnotofferanassistivevotingdevicecouldapplyforatransfercertificateto
permitthemtovoteatapollingsitethatdidhaveadevice.AccordingtoElectionsCanada,The
agencyhasconcludedthatitwillnotproceedfurtherwiththisdevice,butwillcontinuetostudy
additionalmethodsthatcouldfacilitatevotingforelectorswithdisabilities.Inthemeantime,
ElectionsCanadawillcontinuetoofferthoseelectorsawiderangeofservices(seeElections
Canada2011dfordetails).
Table2providesinformationonlegislativeandadministrativeinitiativesforelectorswith
disabilitiesinplacefederallyandinthirteenCanadianjurisdictions.17

17

Note that this survey of Canadian practices is based on information publicly available. It is therefore possible that
something has been omitted. Tthese data, therefore, must be used with some caution.

33

Table2LegislativeandAdministrativeInitiativesforElectorswithDisabilitiesinCanada,ProvincesandTerritories(asof
February22,2012)
Legislative

CA

NL

PE

NB

NS

QC

ON

MB

SK

AB

BC

YK

NT

NU

Powersofthechiefelectoralofficer
Tocarryoutstudiesonalternativevoting
methods

Testalternativevotingmethods

Publiceducationandinformationprogram

Training

Employeetrainingprogramregardingissues
ofsensitivityfordisabledelectors
Obligationtoreporton:
Levelofaccessibilityofpollingsites

Typeofaccessibilityequipmentused
Typeofalternativevotingtechnologies

Votingmethods
Absentee,writeinandmailinballot

Votingathome

Mobilepoll

Transfercertificate

Proxyvoting

Levelaccess
Advancepolls

*1

Pollingday

Returningoffice

34

*
*

Legislative

CA

NL

PE

NB

NS

QC

ON

MB

SK

AB

BC

YK

NT

NU

Interpretation
Language

Signlanguage

Assistancetotheelector
Template(forvisuallyimpairedelectors)

Bythedeputyreturningofficer

Byanotherindividual

Transportationofmaterialtoelector
(confinedtoabed)

Transportationofelectortopollingsite

1.
2

The*indicatesthatthelegislationstatesthatthepollingplacemustbeconvenientforelectors.Thiscouldentaillevelaccess,physicallocationandsettingsaswellasotherrelevantfactors.

Anindividualispermittedtoreceiveassistancefromatranslator;however,theobligationtoprovideatranslatorrestswiththeindividual.

35

Administrative

CA

NL

PE

NB

NS

QC

ON

MB

SK

AB

BC

YK

NT

NU

Targetedcommunicationandoutreach
Electronicbulletinstogroups,including
electorswithdisabilities

Consultationwithgroups,includingelectors
withdisabilities

Website
Dedicatedwebpageforelectorswith
disabilities

Increasefontsize

Changefont

Changecolour

Tactile

Availabilityofreportsinaccessibleformat

Servicesoffered
TTYInformationline

Audiohouseholders
Materialoffered
Braille

Largeprint

Magnifiers

Plainlanguage

Closedcaptionadvertising

36

Administrative

CA

NL

PE

NB

NS

QC

ON

MB

SK

AB

BC

YK

NT

NU

Authorizedpieceofidentificationtovote
CNIBcard

Letterorstatementissuedbyeldershome
orlongtermcarefacility

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Assistivevotingtools
Audioheadphones

Tactilebuttons
LargekeypadsmarkedwithBraille

Paddles

Sipandpuffdevice

Evaluation
Accessibilityfeedbackform

Pilotprojects
Assistivevotingdevice
Pictureofcandidateonaballot

NewfoundlandandLabrador,PrinceEdwardIsland,NewBrunswick,Manitoba,YukonandNunavutdonothavealegalrequirementforelectorstoprovetheiridentityand/orresidenceinorderto
vote.InAlberta,anelectorwhoisnotontheregisterofelectorsbutwouldliketovotemustprovideaproofofidentityandresidence.Onlyauthorizedpiecesofidentificationthatareintendedto
assistelectorswithdisabilitiesarelistedinthischart.Thesepiecesofidentificationcanbeusedasanauthorizedproofofidentificationonlyifitisaccompaniedbyasecondpieceofidentificationto
validateidentityand/orresidence.

N/A=notavailable

Source:Basedoninformationpubliclyavailableonelectoralmanagementbodieswebsitesandinotherdocuments.

37

AsTable2reveals,electoralmanagementbodiesinthenational,provincialandterritorial
jurisdictionscurrentlyoffer22kindsoflegislativebasedservicesforelectorswithdisabilities.
Nosinglejurisdictionprovidesalloftheseinitiatives,althoughElectionsOntario(19of22)and
ElectionsCanada(17of22)offerrelativelycomprehensiveassortmentsoftheseservices.Ata
minimum,all14electoralmanagementbodiesinCanadahaveatleastsixlegislativeinitiatives
directedatelectorswithdisabilities(evenifnotalwaysthesamesixmeasures).Thisappearsto
beahigherfoundationofservicesthanthebasisavailableintheUSfordisabledvotersin
nationalandstateelections(USGeneralAccountingOffice2001).
InCanada,themostwidelyavailablelegislativebasedactivitiesforelectorswithdisabilitiesare
absentee/mailinballot(13of14jurisdictions);levelaccesstopollsonelectionday(13of14)
andatadvancepolls(12of14);andmobilepolls(12of14jurisdictions).Thesecorrespondto
mainstreamvotingmethodswithafocusonpollingstations,perhapstheessenceofinclusive
electoralparticipation.Othercommonlegislativeinitiativesdealwithlanguageinterpretation
andassistancetotheelectorbyadeputyreturningofficerorbyanotherindividual(allavailable
invariouscombinationsin11jurisdictions).Bycontrast,theleastavailablelegislativebased
measuresbyCanadianelectoralmanagementbodiesforelectorswithdisabilitiesareelection
employeetrainingondisabilityissues(1);reportingonaccessibility(2);andtransportation
servicesforelectorswithdisabilitiestopollingstations(2).
InthisageoftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedomsanddisabilityactivism,twogapsin
thelegislativemeasuresofferedacrossthecountrystandoutasprobablyunexpected.Oneis
thatsignlanguageisguaranteedbylawintheelectoralsystemsofonlyfivejurisdictions.No
suchrightexistsinanyoftheprovincesinAtlanticCanadaorWesternCanada.Thesecond
featureisthatatemplateforvisuallyimpairedelectorsisavailableineightjurisdictionsbutnot
inthreeprovincesorinthethreeterritories.Bothofthesegapsrelatetolongstandingand
wellknownphysicalimpairmentsinCanadiansociety.
Regardingpowerstoinnovateonelectoralparticipation,comparativelyfewchiefelectoral
officershaveexplicitstatutoryauthoritytocarryoutstudiesonalternativevotingmethods(4
jurisdictions)and/ortotestalternativevotingmethodsinbyelectionsorgeneralelectionsprior
totheapprovalofparliamentarycommittees(5jurisdictions).Ofthese,onlytwoCanadaand
Ontariohavepowerstobothstudyandtotestalternativevotingmethodsforelectorswith
disabilitiesandforotherdisadvantagedgroups.Moreover,withrespecttoadministrative
basedinnovations,suchaspilotprojectsonassistivevotingdevices,justthreejurisdictions
haveundertakenthese.
Inadditiontotheselegislativemeasures,Table2showsthatthereare25differentkindsof
administrativebasedservicesforelectorswithdisabilitiesprovidedbyoneormoreelectoral
managementbodiesinCanada.Themostcommonlyavailableadministrativebasedinitiatives
aretoofferadedicatedwebpageforelectorswithdisabilities(8jurisdictions);materialin
Braille(8);aTTYinformationline(6);andlargeprintmaterial(6).Infact,mostprovincialand
territorialelectoralmanagementbodieshavearepertoireoffiveorfeweradministrative

38

measuresforelectorswithdisabilities.Aswell,fourjurisdictions,whichincludesmaller
populatedterritoriesandprovinces,offeralmostnoneofthese25administrativemeasures.
BeyondElectionsCanada,relativelyfewelectoralmanagementbodiesinthecountryoffer
targetedcommunicationstoelectorswithdisabilities,engageinspecificconsultationswith
representativedisabilitygroupsorprovideaccessibilityfeedbackformsandprocedures.Eachof
theseseemstobeanimportantelementinaforwardlookingprogramofoutreachtoenhance
theresponsivenessofelectoraladministrationandtoimprovetheaccessibilityoftheelectoral
processfortheseelectors.Inaddition,assistivevotingdevicesareofferedthrough
administrativemeansinonlyafewjurisdictions,almostexclusivelyNewBrunswickandOntario.
Byjurisdiction,themostextensivegroupingoftheseadministrativemeasuresisinOntario(23)
followedbyCanada(15)andNewBrunswick(12).Thesearethesamejurisdictionswiththe
mostextensivelegislativeinitiativesforvoterswithdisabilities.Thisindicatesthat
administrativemeasuresareacomplementto,ratherthanasubstitutefor,legislative
measures.Inotherwords,bothlegislativecommitmentsandadministrativeservicesare
requiredforanenergeticsetofsupportsforelectorswithdisabilities.
Overall,then,electoralmanagementbodiesinCanadacanbedescribedandcompared
accordingtothemagnitudeoftheirservicesandsupportstoelectorswithdisabilities.Bythis
basicmeasure,the14bodiesmaybegroupedintothreeclusters.Thefirstclusterincludes
Canada,NewBrunswickandOntario.Thebodiesinthesejurisdictions,asalreadynoted,arethe
mostactiveinthecountrybothinlegislativeandadministrativemeasuresforelectorswith
disabilities.Allthreebodiesundertakeatleasthalforconsiderablymoreoftheuniverseof
governmentalinitiativessurveyedacrossthecountry.Thesecondclusterincludestheelectoral
managementbodiesinfiveprovinces(NS,QC,MB,ABandBC),eachofwhichoffersaboutone
thirdofthelegislativeandadministrativemeasuresthatwerelistedfordisabledvoters.The
thirdclustercomprisestheelectoralmanagementbodiesinthesixotherjurisdictions,including
alltheterritories(NL,PE,SK,YK,NTandNU).Thesebodiesofferamoremodestselectionof
legislativeinitiativesandfewifanyadministrativemeasuresforelectorswithdisabilities.
Thesepatternsofactivitiessuggestthatconsiderablescopeexistsacrossthecountryfor
sharingexperiencesamongelectoralmanagementbodiesaswellasamongparliamentarians,
disabilitygroupsandotherstakeholders;andthatopportunitiesexistfordrawinglessonsand
identifyingpositivepracticesthatmaybeapplicableforagivenjurisdiction.Theinformationin
Table2alsosuggeststhatsomereformsdoimplylegislationyet,atthesametime,anumberof
significantchangesmaynotrequireamendmentstoelectionactsbutcanbeachievedthrough
administrativeactionsbyelectoralofficials.
InnovationsintheuseofInternetvotingmachineshavealsobeenpilotedbyahandfulof
municipalitiesinsomeprovinces.SuchonlinevotinghasbeentriedinlocalelectionsinHalifax,
PeterboroughandMarkham(Matas2011).InMarkham,Ontario,Internetvotingmachines
wereusedinadvancevotingonly,atacostofabout$25,000,whileonelectiondaythecity
usedopticalscanvotetabulators(Ferenc2003;Kapica2009).In2010cityelectionsin
Winnipeg,newvotingmachineswerepurchasedtoassistpeoplewithdisabilities,andother
39

groups,tovoteatbothadvancepollsandelectionday.Thecityalsoofferedfordisabled
electorstheoptionsofvotingwithakeypadandaballotprinter,aBrailletemplate,moving
paddles,andpersonalassistanceifrequested(Rollason2010).Othercitieshavealsointroduced
oneoranotherofthesevotingmethodsforelectorswithdisabilities;forexample,Braille
ballotsinSaskatoonsmunicipalelections(Boklaschuk2003)andaccessiblevotingmachinesfor
blindelectorsinthe2010Torontomunicipalelections(Rae2010).

40

5. BESTPRACTICESINELECTORALADMINISTRATIONANDOUTREACH
Theelectionsystemdoesnotrestononlyonepublicvalueorpoliticalprinciple.Theideasthat
affectelectoralpracticesareseveral,raisingthepracticalrealitiesofneedingtorankobjectives,
toattainabalancebetweenthem,andtomanagetradeoffsaswell.Theliteratureidentifies
thevaluesofincreasingtheenfranchisementofelectorswithdisabilities;andraisingvoting
participationandturnout;maintainingtheintegrityoftheindividualvoteagainstrisksoffraud,
abuse,deceptionormanipulation,andalsotheintegrityoftheoverallelectionsystemasfree
andfairvotingtherebyfosteringconfidenceandtrustintheelectoralsystemandthewider
politicalsystem(Beckett2006;KarlawishandBonnie2007,90510).
Bestpracticesrefertoanyprogressivedevelopmentinelectoraladministration,outreachand
communicationsthatadvancestheelectoralawareness,accessandparticipationofpeoplewith
disabilitiesasvoters.Bestpracticesinelectionadministrationandoutreach,fromthe
perspectiveofdisabilityrights,mustbeconsistentwithprinciplesofaccessibility,individual
autonomy,communityinclusion,respectfortheinherentcapacityanddignityofpeople,
privacyincastingaballot,andalsoassistanceinvoting,attherequestofelectorswith
disabilities,byapersonoftheirownchoice.Manyprogressivereformsinelectoraloutreach
andcommunicationsareintheearlystagesofimplementationandevaluation.
Itisproblematictoassumethatthereisasinglegoldstandardinelectoralparticipationa
standardthatisoftenseenisvotinginperson,insideapollingstation,withoutassistance,in
secret,onelectionday,andregardlessofonesdisabilityandneeds.Thatformulationdefinitely
expressesanumberofcherishedvalues.However,itrisksestablishingaonebestwaytovote,
ofprojectingauniversalideathatistooabstract,andtoodisembodiedanddistantfromthe
diversitiesofhumancommunities.Suchauniversalidealrendersinvisiblethecircumstances,
andtheobstaclesandbarriersfaced,bymanycitizenswithdisabilities.Wemustthereforebe
cautiousindrawinghardandfastconclusionsastowhatworksandwhatareexemplary
practices.Assumptionsofonesizefitsallsolutionsaretrickygiventhecomplexities,variety
andcontinualchangesinelectoralsystemsandpracticesandinpoliticalcontextsaroundthe
world.
Votingiscommonlyunderstoodtobeapersonalactdoneinsecret.Itis,ofcourse,alsoa
politicalact.Together,itisaprivatedecisionexercisingapublicrightorobligation.
Furthermore,weknowthatvotingisaphysicalact,thehumanbodyinactionmediatedbythe
accessibilityofelectionmaterialsandofpollingstationsandthevenuesinwhichtheyare
situated.Increasingly,itseemscastingaballotisatechnologicalandsocialact,especiallyfor
electorswithdisabilitieswithvarioustechniquesandhumansactingassupportstoenable
participation.Onthislastpoint,theElectoralAssistanceCommission,afederalgovernment
organizationintheUS,in2010launchedanAccessibleVotingTechnologyInitiative.This
initiativeprovidedgrantstosupportresearchontransformativetechnologiesthatwillmake
votingmoreaccessibletoallelectors,includingAmericanswithcognitive,mentalandphysical
disabilities(USElectionAssistanceCommission2010a).

41

Ageneraltrendbothacrossandwithinnationsisthemovetoadoptalternativewaysofvoting
intendedtoenhancetheelectoralinvolvementofpeoplewithdisabilities,andothergroups,
historicallyunderrepresentedindemocraticpoliticsandelections.Asseenintheprevious
section,theextentofdiversificationinvotingmethodsvariesmarkedlyamongthefivenations
reviewedhere.Thisvariationisalsonotedinelectionoutreachservices.Onalternativevoting
channels,themostlimitednationalsystemappearstobetheoneintheUK.Ironically,theUK
tookleadershipinpilotingevotingtechniques,butsincehasnotfollowedthroughwithwider
reformsalongtheselines.Themostexpansiveelectionsysteminofferingarepertoireofvoting
methodsisprobablyCanada,amongthefivecountriessurveyed.
Onoutreachservicestoelectorswithdisabilities,allfivecountriesareactivelyengagedone
wayoranotherintheprovisionofthesesortsofinformational,educationandaccessibility
services.Thedesiredoutcomesofeducationandinformationcampaignsbyelectoral
managementbodiesarethreefold:topromotepublicawarenessofelectionprocessesandthe
availabilityofvotingoptions;tobolsterpublicbeliefandconfidenceintheelectoralprocess;
andtofosterparticipationinvoting.Outreachactivitiesarethoseformsofinformationand
otherservicestogroups,suchasdisabledelectors,thatmightotherwisebeneglectedor
inadequatelyserved.Fordisabledelectors,theseservicesandcommunicationsmustbein
accessibleformats(WorldHealthOrganization2011).
Abestpracticewithrespecttocommunicationiswhenthestatutorymandateoftheelectoral
managementbodyincludesresponsibilitiesforeducatingandinformingvoters,forundertaking
orsponsoringresearchonelectoralparticipation,andinitiatingoutreachactivitiestogroups
withlowlevelsofvoterturnout.Theseconstituteproactivefunctionsthatcomplementand
extendbeyondtheconventionaladministrativeandregulatorypowersofthesebodiesto
maintainvoterrolls,conductelections,enforcevotinglawsandregulations,registerpolitical
partiesandmonitorpartieselectionexpenditures.
TheElectoralCommissionintheUK,forinstance,recentlyfundedathreeyearresearchproject
donebyUnitedResponse,anationaldisabilityorganization,onhowtoenhancetheelectoral
participationofpeoplewithlearningdisabilitiesandpeoplewithotherimpairments.This
projectcontributedtoanationalcampaignledbythedisabilityorganization,inconjunction
withmobilizingpoliticalpartiesandcandidates,togetthevoteoutforthe2010general
elections,withnotablesuccessinraisingvoterturnoutamongelectorswithlearningdisabilities
(UnitedResponse2010).InNewZealand,tociteadifferentkindofoutreachtothedisability
community,theElectoralCommissionsrecruitmentpolicyprovidesthatelectionstaffshould
reflectthecommunity.Thus,oneinitiativeisthatalladvertisementsforelectionstaffwillstate
thatapplicationsfromdisabledpeoplearewelcome.Aswell,theCommissionendeavoursto
usedisabilitygrouppremisesasvotingplaces.
Theadoptionofadisabilityaccessandinclusionlensmaybethoughtofasamacrolevelbest
practice.Thisreferstoaperspectiveonmainstreamingthatisintendedtoinformthe
organizationalcultureandworkpracticesofanelectoralmanagementbodyandthewider

42

electionsystem.Itisastrategictoolforbeingpractical,affirmativeandinclusiveonmattersof
electoraladministrationandelectoralparticipation.
AcaseinpointistheWesternAustraliaElectoralCommission,whichhasaDisabilityAccessand
InclusionPlan.GuidedbytheWesternAustraliaDisabilityServicesAct1993,amongotherpolicy
statements,theintentofthisPlanistoensurethattheneedsofelectorswithdisabilitiesare
bothroutinelyandfullyconsideredandthataccessrequirementsareapriorityofthe
Commission.Developedinconsultationwithpeoplewithdisabilitiesandtheirrepresentative
stakeholderorganizations,thePlanappliestotheCommissionanditsofficersandemployeesas
wellasitsagentsandcontractors(casualandcontractstaff).ThePlan,whichcoverstheperiod
2007to2012,comprisesseveralparts:astatementofprinciples,objectives,sixdesired
outcomes,andactionplanswithtimelinesforimplementation.18ThePlanistobereviewed
everyfiveyears,withevaluationreportsmadepublic(WesternAustraliaElectoralCommission
2011).
IntheCanadiancontext,ElectionsOntariohasanIntegratedAccessibilityStandardsPolicy
DirectivetoinformplanningrequirementsunderthenewIntegratedAccessibilityStandards
Regulationenactedin2011undertheAccessibilityforOntarianswithDisabilitiesAct,
2005.ThispolicyprovidestheoverallstrategicdirectionforElectionsOntarioscommitmentto
providingaccessibilitysupportstoOntarianswithdisabilities.Aspartofitscommitmentto
accessibility,ElectionsOntariohasestablishedtheElectionsOntarioAccessibilityAdvisory
Committee.TheCommitteesmandateistoadvisethechiefelectoralofficeroninitiativestobe
undertakenbyElectionsOntarioforremovingbarriersintheelectoralprocessandfor
increasingopportunitiesavailabletopersonswithdisabilities.19

18

ThesixdesiredoutcomesoftheDisabilityAccessandInclusionPlanare:First,peoplewithdisabilitieshavethe
sameopportunitiesasotherpeopletoaccessourservicesandevents.Second,peoplewithdisabilitieshavethe
sameopportunitiesasotherpeopletoaccessourbuildingsandotherfacilities.Third,peoplewithdisabilities
receiveinformationfromusinaformatthatwillenablethemtoaccesstheinformationasreadilyasotherpeople
areabletoaccessit.Fourth,peoplewithdisabilitiesreceivethesamelevelandqualityofservicefromour
employeesasotherpeople.Fifth,peoplewithdisabilitieshavethesameopportunitiesasotherpeopletomake
complaintstous.And,thesixthdesiredoutcomeofthePlanisthatpeoplewithdisabilitieshavethesame
opportunitiesasotherpeopletoparticipateinanypublicconsultationwemaycarryout(WesternAustralia
ElectoralCommission2011).
19

AccordingtotheElectionsOntariowebsite,theAccessibilityAdvisoryCommitteehelditsfirstmeetingon
January26,2011.AllmembersoftheCommitteeserveatthediscretionofthechiefelectoralofficer,tocarryout
theirmandateasdirectedbythechiefelectoralofficer.Amaximumof15memberscanbeappointedtothe
Committee.AmajorityofmembersoftheCommitteeshallbepersonswithdisabilities.Considerationisgivento
includingCommitteemembersfromvariousgeographicalareasoftheprovinceandmemberswhorepresenta
crosssectionofthedisabilitycommunity.Intermsofmandate,theCommitteeshalladviseElectionsOntarioon
issuesrelatedbutnotlimitedtothedevelopment,implementationandeffectivenessofElectionsOntarios
AccessibilityProgram;insightsintotherequirementsofpeoplewithdisabilitieswithregardtotheelectoral
process;emergingregulationsmadeundertheAccessibilityforOntarianswithDisabilitiesAct2005andpossible
implicationsofthoseregulations;optionsandadviceonotheraccessibilityrelatedissueswithintheorganization;

43

Inasimplemanner,wecanthinkofbestpracticesinsupportstoelectorswithdisabilitiestaking
placeatthreebasictimeperiods:beforevoting,whenvotingitselfoccursduringtheelection
campaign,andaftertheelectionisdone.Beforevoting,progressivemeasures,asofferedby
ElectionsCanada,includeatollfreeinformationlineforthosewithahearingimpairment;
documentswrittenspecificallyforpeoplewithdisabilitiesand/orlowliteracy;andasign
languageDVDwithopenandclosedcaptioningforpeoplewhoaredeaforhardofhearing.
ElectionsCanadaprovideslargeprintlistsofcandidatesandbroadcastinformationvia
VoicePrintandtheMagnetotqueduringelections.In2010amendmentstotheOntario
ElectionAct,ElectionsOntariomustensurethatadvancepollandelectiondayvotinglocations
areaccessibletovoterswithdisabilities.Sixmonthsbeforeelectionday,thechiefelectoral
officerisrequiredtoposttheproposedvotinglocationsonawebsiteforpublicconsultation
(ElectionsOntario2011a).20
ReferencecanalsobemadetoaccessibilitytrainingforElectionsCanadastaffandupdated
signageregardingaccess.Moreover,forpeoplewithvisionloss:
WebaccessibilityhasalsobecomeapriorityforElectionsCanada,andithas
beenupgradingitsonlineofferingsbasedonaccessiblewebdesignexpertise
providedbyCNIB.TheElectionsCanadawebsiteisnowcompatiblewith
technologythatpeoplewithvisionlosstypicallyusetoaccessacomputer,such
asscreenreadingormagnificationsoftwareprograms,orelectronicBraille
keyboards.Specialhiddenlinkshavealsobeenaddedtoalmosteverypageto
allowforeasynavigationwithascreenreadingprogram.Theseprogramsusea
syntheticaudiovoicetoreadwhatappearsoristypedonascreenforthe
computeruserwithvisionloss(CanadianNationalInstitutefortheBlind2011b).
Whencastingaballotoccursduringanelectioncampaign,anumberofprogressivepractices
aretargetedatspecificelectorswithimpairments.RecentinitiativesbyElectionsOntarioin
makingvotingmoreaccessibleforpeoplewithvisionlossofferanillustration:

developingaballottemplatewithcandidatessurnamesinlargeprint,andprovidingsighted
guidingassistancetoandfromthescreen,whichwillallowmanymorepeoplewithvision
losstomarktheirballotsinprivate;

broadcastingelectioninformationadsonVoicePrintCanadas24houraudiobroadcast
serviceforprintrestrictedCanadians;

providingelectioninformationmaterialsinalternativeformats.IntheOctober2011Ontario

andfuturepublicconsultationonaccessibility,includingrecommendationsonthestructureandmembershipof
thepermanentElectionsOntarioAccessibilityAdvisoryCommittee.
20

TheElectionsOntariowebsitereceivedmorethan3,000hitsontheproposedvotinglocations.Morethan1,000
individualsororganizationsdownloadedthefullreport,includingalltheproposedvotinglocations,andalmost100
individualsgavefeedback.ElectionsOntarioevaluatedthefeedbackandrespondeddirectlytothosemembersof
thepublicwhosentcomments.

44

election,ElectionsOntariodistributedadirectmailbrochuretoeveryhouseholdinthe
province.Theinformationwasmadeavailableinalargeprintformatand,throughthe
CanadianNationalInstitutefortheBlind,inaudioandinBrailleformat,ifavailable.Itwas
alsobroadcastoverVoicePrint;

trainingstaffatvotinglocationstobesensitivetothediverseneedsofvoters;and

placingcleardirectionalsignageinallvotinglocations(CanadianNationalInstituteforthe
Blind2011b;ElectionsOntario2011a;seealsoOwen2010).

Therearealsobestpracticesinelectionadministrationafterthecompletionofageneral
election,todowithmonitoring,consultationandevaluation.Suchpostinspectionreviewsof
anelectionprocessarerequiredinAustralia,Canadaandcertainprovinces.Otherjurisdictions,
suchasNewZealandandsomeUSstates,havechosentoundertakepostelectionsurveysof
thegeneralpopulationand/orwithafocusonvoterswithspecialneeds.Thisfosters,
KarlawishandBonnie(2007,910)maintain,accountability,problemidentification,and
problemsolving.TheElectoralCommissioninNewZealand,forexample,hasconsultedwith
disabilitygroupsanddevelopedanactionplan,calledAccess2011,designedtoimprovethe
accessibilityofelectionsandelectoralservicesforelectorswithdisabilities.Informedby
feedbackandcomplaintsofrecentelections,aswellasconsultations,thisaccessibilityaction
planfitswithinthecontextofthedisabilityactionplandevelopedbytheNewZealand
governmentsOfficeforDisabilityIssues.
Ofparticularrelevancetovotingbytheelderlyarerequirementsforareportsummarizingthe
measurestakentoprovideaccessfordisabledvoters,asisthecaseinOntario.21Forinstance,
ElectionsCanadaoffersapollingsiteaccessibilityfeedbackprocess,withaformthatinvites
electorswithdisabilitiestosubmittheircommentsandcomplaintsaboutpollingsites.In
particular,electorsareinvitedtoofferfeedbackontheirsatisfaction(ornot)withaccessible
parking,theexternalwalkwaysandentrancestothepollingsite,interiorroutesandthevoting
area,andsignage.Electorsarealsoaskedtooffercommentsontheirabilitytovoteandother
relatedpersonalexperienceswiththevotingprocess.Commentsarekeptconfidentialand,if
theelectorrequests,ElectionsCanadawillrespondtoindividualconcernsaboutaccessand
service.

21

KarlawishandBonnie(2007,904)note:A2001amendmenttotheOntarioElectionActrequireselections
officialstosubmitareportwithinthreemonthsofelectiondaysummarizingthemeasurestakentoprovideaccess
fordisabledvoters.

45

6. CONCLUSION
Thisreporthasbeenaninquiryintotheinteractionbetweenpersonaldisablementandpublic
engagement;betweenfunctionallimitationsandpoliticalpossibilitiesinshort,acasestudyof
therelationshipbetweendisabilityanddemocracy.
ThereportsempiricalcontributionisasanuptodatecomparativesurveyofCanadas
electoralregimesastheyareaddressingthedemocraticrightsofasocialgroupdisadvantaged
becauseofmentalorphysicaldisability.Acorebeliefheldbymanydisabilitygroups,electoral
managementbodiesandpoliticalscientistsisthatwiththedevelopmentandintroductionof
newvotingmethods,alongwithmoreaccessibleinformationandpollingstations,therewill
be,sotheclaimandhopegoes,anotableincreaseinvoterturnoutbyelectorswithcognitive,
mentalandphysicaldisabilities.Inotherwords,throughcertainprogressivepracticesof
outreach,thetrendofcontinualdecliningvoterturnoutgenerallyobservedacrossdemocracies
couldbereversed,atleastinthecaseofamarginalgroupsuchaspeoplewithdisabilities.
Thereportsconceptualcontributionisbyprovidingasetoftermsandideaswithwhichto
thinkandtalkaboutelectoraladministrationandvoterparticipation.

6.1.

SummaryofKeyFindings

Electoralregimescontributetoshapingthenatureofdemocracyandtodisabilitypoliticsthat
is,thegoals,strategiesandactionsoforganizationsrepresentingpeoplewithvarious
impairmentsinCanadaandinothercountries.Inturn,throughtheirparticipation,citizenswith
disabilitiescaninfluencethecharacterofelectoralpoliticsindemocraticnations.
Acherishedpoliticalidealandfundamentalconstitutionalright,electoralparticipationisalsoa
contestedstateofaffairsandchangingsetofpractices.Thepictureofelectoralsystemsthat
emergesfromthisanalysisisofelaborateandimportantpublicinstitutions,respondingto
variousexpectationsofelectorsandeffortsbythedisabledvotingmovement,andadopting
newmeasuresinvaryingwaysanddegreesacrossjurisdictionstoactivelyfacilitatethe
participationofpeoplewithcognitive,mentalandphysicalimpairments.
Asaninstitutionfortheexerciseofdemocraticcitizenship,electoralsystemshaveaparticular
significancetodisabilitygroupsintermsofahistoryofpastexclusionsandintheformof
presentaspirationsandcollectivemobilizationforequalityrightsandfullparticipationin
politicalcommunities.Itisclearlythecasethatparticipatingingeneralelectionshasapositive
effectonselfperceptionsandsocialidentitiesofpeoplewithdisabilities,asitdoeswith
electorswithoutdisabilities(Prince2009;Schur1998).
Afundamentalfindingfromthisreportisthatdifferentmodelsofdisabilitycoexistwithinand
aroundelectoralrules,procedures,practicesandoverallsystems.Electoralarrangementsin
Canada,aswellasinotherdevelopeddemocracies,incorporatethreedistinctmodelsof
disability:anindividualisticandbiomedicalapproachtodisability,afunctionalmodelof

47

disabilityandasocialmodelofdisability.Thesedifferentmodelshavedistinctiveimplications
suchasforpublicperceptionsandattitudestowardpeoplewithdisabilities;thecombinationof
targetedand/ormainstreamservicesprovided;andtherelativeemphasisonpersonal
responsibilityratherthansocietalaccountabilityforaddressingbarriersandmakingaccess
andinclusionrealforvoterswithdisabilities.Therefore,reformstoelectoraladministrationor
communicationandoutreach,designedtoenhancevoterparticipation,occurwithinacontext
ofthesemodelsofdisability.
If,forexample,votingmethodsrequireorexpectdisabledelectorstodependupontheaidof
familyorfriendtocasttheirballot,whileofferinglittleifanyotheroptionsand
accommodationsthatapproximatethedemocraticparadigmofvoting,thenthedisability
statusofthatelectorislikelytobepersonallyexperiencedandpubliclypresentedasan
individualmisfortuneandproblemofcaregivingaprivateresponsibility,inlargepartrather
thanbeviewedasasocialissueandproblemofcitizenship,amatterofhumanrightsandpublic
policy.22Inrecentdecades,electoralmanagementbodiesandgovernmentshavebeen
undertakingchangestoelectionprocesses,expandingtherangeofvotingmethodsforelectors
withdisabilitiesandtakingotherstepstofacilitatecivicengagement.Ingeneral,thesechanges
areshiftingthemixofdisabilitymodelsembeddedinelectoralsystems.Theshiftisgradually
awayfromindividualandmedicalconceptions,towardthefunctionalandsocialconcepts,with
greaterattentiontointeractionsbetweenelectorsandtechnologiesandtotheroleofpublic
policies,activismandsocietalinstitutionsinfosteringasenseofopportunity,participationand
belonging.
Mostnationsworldwidedisqualifypeoplefromvotingbasedonmentalincapacity.IntheUS,if
apersonwithamentalorcognitiveimpairmentisassignedaguardian,thepersoncanfacean
automaticlegalexclusionfromtherighttovote.InAustraliaandNewZealand,medical
certificationsareoftenusedtodisqualifyindividualswithmentalimpairmentsfromvoting.
WhiletherehasbeenlegislativereformintheUKtoprotecttherightsofpeopledeemedto
havealearningorintellectualdisability,exclusionsstilltakeplace(KarlawishandBonnie2007;
Redley,HughesandHolland2010).Canadaisoneofjustafewcountriesworldwidewithno
statutoryexclusionbasedonmentalincapacity(KarlawishandBonnie2007).
Throughlitigation,lobbyingandotherdemocraticmeans,disabilitygroupsinCanada,Australia,
theUK,theUSandothernationshavetakenactiontoremoveobviousbarrierstoelectoral
participationandtoimprovetheadministrationofelectionsandtheelectoralprocess
(Harrington1999;Jaeger2004;PeoplewithDisability2011;Seelye2001).Inthisregard,some
scholarsobserveoftheAmericanexperience:Federalinterestinthemitigationofbarriersto
votingbypeoplewithdisabilitiesarosenotbyhappenstancebutratherastheproductof
increasedpoliticalactivismbypeoplewithdisabilitiesthatcoincidedwithabroadercivilrights
22

Seeremarksbyorganizationsrepresentingtheblind,deaf/blindorpartiallysightedinCanadaortheUS(Alliance
forEqualityofBlindCanadians2011;AmericanFoundationfortheBlind2011;East2011).Thecleardesireistobe
abletovoteindependentlyandprivately,withouttheassistanceofanotherperson,andtobeabletoverifythe
accuracyoftheirvote.

48

movement(Ward,BakerandMoon2009,81).InCanada,thefederalelectoralprocesshas
becomeprogressivelymoreaccessible,inlargemeasurebecauseofadvocacybyoronbehalfof
personswithdisabilities,observeKarlawishandBonnie(2007,903;seealsoDavidsonand
Lapp2004).Onlitigationandequalityrightsclaims,alawprofessorconcludesthatdecisionsof
theSupremeCourtofCanadainthelasttwodecadeshaveinvolvedsignificantadvancesfor
personswithdisabilities;however,thereismuchtobedonetoachievesubstantiveequality
(Pothier2006,316).Electioncampaignsareastrategicopportunityforgroupstotestby
experiencethelegalguaranteesofequalityandaccessibility;todisseminateinformationabout
disabilityrelatedissues(andotherpublicpolicymatters,too);topromotecertain
recommendationsandpreferredsolutionsforbettermeetinghumanneeds;topetition
candidatesandpoliticalparties;andtoraiseawarenessofthemassmediaand,throughthese
agencies,votersandthepublicmoregenerally.
Inthisstudy,electoralparticipationhasbeenconceptualizedinthreedimensions.First,the
environmentofpolicy,courtdecisions,legislationanddisabilitygroupactionsthatcomprisean
independentfeatureofelectoralparticipation.Secondly,thepracticesofelectoral
managementbodies,includingthevotingmethodsdeployed,especiallythosemethods
specificallydesignedtoassistelectorswithdisabilitieswithvoting.Thirdly,theelectors
themselvesandthoseindividualsandgroups,suchasfamily,friendsandothers,intheir
immediatesupportnetwork.Fromthisperspective,electoralparticipationisadynamic
interplayamongfactorswithinandacrossthesethreedimensions.Theeffortsofmany
electoralmanagementbodiesinrecentyearshavetendedtofocusonthemiddledimensionof
thisframework;inotherwords,theservicesandtechnologiesforthecastingofballots,along
withtherulesgoverningaspectsofregisteringtovoteandtheconductofelections(Scope
2010a).
ManyimprovementstoelectoralprocessesandadministrationhavetakenplaceinCanadaand
othernationsthatbenefittheparticipationofelectorswithdisabilities.Variouspromising
practicesinelectoraladministrationhavebeenidentifiedandareworthconsiderationby
jurisdictionsthatpresentlydonotoffersuchoutreachservicesoroptionsinaccessibleand
inclusivevotingmethods.
Overall,electoralreformshaveaddressedseveralbroadcategoriesofimpairments:

forelectorswithpermanentdisabilities,seriousillnessorinfirmitygeneralearlyvoting
(bymailand/orinperson)andmobilepollingforthoseinhospitals,resthomes,seniors
centresandothercarefacilities;

forelectorswithphysicalmobilityissueslevelaccessforadvancepollsandelection
day,sipandpuffdevices,paddles,drivethroughpollingplacesandredesigneddesktop
votingbooths;

forelectorswithhearingchallengessignlanguageinterpretationservices,hardof
hearingcountercards,pockettalkers/personalamplifiers,multilingualguidesandTTY
facility;
49

forvisuallyimpairedelectorstemplates,magnifyingglassesorsheetsatpollingplaces,
tactilebuttonsforvotingdevices,andmaterialofferedinBrailleandlargesizeprinting
ofballotsatpollingplaces;and

forelectorswithanydisability,awidespreadreformhasbeentherightoropportunity
toobtainassistancefromanotherpersonorelectionofficial.

Nonetheless,barrierstovotingbyelectorswithdisabilitiescontinuetoexistinallthecountries
orjurisdictionssurveyedforthisreport(PollsApart2010;WorldHealthOrganization2011).
Thisisevidentbytheseveralstudiesnotedinthisreportwhichacrossvariouscountries,
jurisdictionsandtypesofelectoralsystemspointtotheunderrepresentationofpeoplewith
disabilitiesasvotersinelections.Barrierstovotingarenotexclusivelyorpredominantly
explicableintermsofindividualimpairments.Furthermore,theaccessofelectoralsystemsis
notexplainedsimplybyreferencetothepresenceofanarrayofvotingmethods.Rather,the
accessibilityof,andopportunityfor,votingbypeoplewithdisabilitiesdependonanumberof
policy,environmentalandsocialfactors.

6.2.

Recommendations

Weturnnowtoofferingsomeproposalsorsuggestionsonbestpracticesdesignedtoreduce
barriersthatelectorswithdisabilitiesface,andhowtocommunicateandmoreeffectively
reachthisgroupofelectors.Anyandallrecommendationsmustmeetthetestoffosteringthe
effectiveinvolvementofpeoplewithdisabilitiesinpoliticalandpubliclife,includingelectoral
participation,onanequalbasiswithotherCanadiancitizens.
Electoralparticipationofdisabledelectorscanbeadvancedbypayingattentiontothediversity
inCanadiansocietyofphysicalandmentalabilitiesamongcitizensandbyofferinganarrayof
sourcesofinformationonelectionsandoptionsforvotingmethods.Electionstaffandworkers,
whilehighlydedicatedandcompetent,maynotpossessthenecessaryknowledgeandskillsto
provideappropriateserviceswhatevertheelectorsimpairments.Disabilityrightsassociations
andimpairmentspecificgroupsareanimportantpartoftheelectoralsystem,providing
services,supportsandinformation.
Communicationandoutreachactivitiesshouldaddressbothpersonalandsocialattitudes
towardtheelectoralprocessinamultifacetedandtargetedstrategy.Measuresneedtofocus
ontheattitudesofseveralgroupsofactorsandrelationships:electionworkerstowardelectors
withdisabilitiesandanyindividualwhoaccompaniesthem(e.g.personalassistant,interpreter
orpeersupport);healthcareadministratorsandstafftowardresidentswithdisabilities;family
membersofpeoplewithdisabilities;andtheattitudesofindividualswithdisabilitiesconcerning
politics,democracyandvoting.
Earlier,wepresentedinformationonlegislativeandadministrativeinitiativesforelectorswith
disabilitiesinplacefederallyandinthe10provincialandthreeterritorialCanadianjurisdictions.
Thatsurvey(seeTable2)indicatesanumberofvotingoptionsandservicesdeployedby

50

electoralmanagementbodiesfordisabledelectorswhicharenotcurrentlyinplaceatthe
federallevel.Accordingly,thefollowingrecommendationsareofferedforconsideration:
1. ThatElectionsCanadareviewallofitselectoralpoliciesandprocedures,andadministrative
rulesandpracticesintermsoftheprinciples,articlesandobligationsintheUNConvention
ontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.
2. ThatElectionsCanadaintroduceanemployeetrainingprogram,similartoinitiativesin
Ontarioandelsewhere,forelectionworkersregardingraisingawarenessaboutdisability
issuesandsensitivityissuesfordisabledelectors.Theaimofawarenesstrainingistocorrect
misconceptions,tocombatstereotypesandtocounselstaffintherightsrecognizedinthe
UNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities,soastobetterprovideservices.
Thismeanstrainingthatrecognizesthatdisabilityisadiverseandevolvingphenomenon,
andthatdisabilityresultsfromtheinteractionbetweenpersonswithimpairmentsand
attitudinalandenvironmentalbarriers.Trainingmodulescouldbedevelopedthatreflect
therolesandresponsibilitiesofthearrayofelectionofficers:returningofficersanddeputy
returningofficers,registrationofficers,pollsupervisorsandpollclerks,specialballot
coordinator(hospitals),trainingofficersandinformationofficers.
3. ThatElectionsCanadaseekstatutoryresponsibilityundertheCanadaElectionsActto
undertakereportsonthelevelofaccessibilityofpollingstations,thetypeofaccessibility
equipmentused,thetypeofalternativetechnologiesdeployed,andtheavailabilityof
reportsinaccessibleformat.
4. That,inconnectionwiththeHughesdecision,ElectionsCanadareviewand,whereneeded,
revisewebsitepractices,includingvariablefontsizesandcolours,toensurethehighest
levelofaccessibilitytoallcitizens,whatevertheirimpairmentorneed.
5. ThatElectionsCanadaapproachthemajorpoliticalpartiesatthenationalleveltoconsult
onhowtoensure,throughinformationguidesandotherpolicytools,thatallcandidate
meetingsareaccessibleinsuchmattersaslocationofmeetings,advertising,signageand
assistiveservices.
6. ThatElectionsCanadareviewtherangeofassistivevotingtoolsbeingofferedincertain
provincialjurisdictionstoolsthatincludeaudioheadphones,tactilebuttons,large
keyboardsmarkedwithBraille,paddles,andsipandpuffdevices.
7. ThatElectionsCanadatestInternetorevotinginafederalbyelectiontodeterminethe
accessibilityandfeasibilityofsuchmethodsforallelectors,withaspecialviewastohowit
mayaddressbarriersdisabledelectorsexperience.
8. ThatElectionsCanadastrengthenitsrelationshipswithnationalorganizationsrepresenting
personswithdisabilities,includingtheinvolvementofdisabledelectorsinpostelection
assessmentsorevaluationsofelectoralpracticesandexperiences,andinidentifyinggaps

51

andprioritiestoreducebarriersaswellasplansforimprovingaccessibility.Thisworking
relationshipmightbedonethroughadisabilityadvisorycommitteetoElectionsCanada.23
9. ThatElectionsCanadabetterinformadministratorsofhealthcareandresidentialfacilities
oftheirroleinsupportingtherightsofelectorswithdisabilitiesintheircare.Aspartofthis
initiative,staffinlongtermcaresettings,includingactivityandrecreationtherapists,nurses
andsocialworkers,mustbeinvolvedinsuchinformationalandsupportinitiatives.So,too,
theseinitiativesmustbedirectedatfamilymembersandsignificantothersinthelivesof
residentsinnursinghomesandsimilarcarefacilities.
10. ThatElectionsCanadaconductvotereducationandinformationprograms,foryouthwith
disabilitiesamongotherpossiblegroupsofelectorswithdisabilitieswhofacechallenges
andbarriersinparticipatinginelectoralprocesses.Suchprograms,effectivelytargeted,
havethepotentialofraisingawareness,buildingknowledgeandgeneratinginterestin
Canadiandemocracy,politicsandvoting.

6.3.

KnowledgeGapsandResearchNeeds

Despitedisabilityactivism,aswellaslegislativeandrelatedpolicyreformsaimedatpeoplewith
disabilitiesinnumerousdemocraticsocieties(NewZealand,OfficeforDisabilityIssues2011;
Prince2010;Ward,BakerandMoon2009),mostjurisdictionsfailinevaluatingtheir
administrativeinitiativestargetedtoelectorswithdisabilities.Thereismeritindoingsuch
evaluationsifbarriersaretobesystematicallyremovedandparticipationbroadlyenabled.
Theliteraturereviewedindicatesboththerangeandthecombinationofresearchmethodsthat
canbeusedtostudyelectoralmanagementandvoterparticipation.Theliteraturealsoreveals
certainstrengthsaswellasgapsinourexistingknowledgeofdisabledelectors.Forexample,
studiesbuiltonquantitativemethods,usuallyasurveydesign,providenumericdescriptionsof
thecharacteristicsofaspecificorbroadspectrumpopulationofpersonswithdisabilities,and
attimes,comparethatgroupwiththegeneralpopulationofvotersinajurisdiction.Overall,
therearenotmanysuchstudiesinthisfield,andmosthavebeendoneintheUS.Some
quantitativestudies,asexplanatoryresearch,alsoseektotesthypothesesortheoriesabout
votingbehaviourfoundinpoliticalscienceandelectoralstudies.Thesesurveystudiesare
almostallcrosssectionalinnature;thatis,likeasnapshot,theyobserveacollectionofpeople
atonlyonepointintime,typicallyfollowingarecentelection.24Anotherkindofquantitative

23

Asonepossiblemodel,thisadvisorycommitteecouldhavethefollowingfeatures:membershipincludingthe
chiefelectoralofficer(CEO)anduptosixrepresentativesofnationaldisabilityrelatedgroups;amandatetoadvise
theCEOonelectionprocessandadministrationoftherelevantlegislation,toshareinformationandobtaininput,
andtoadviseontheconductofstudiesofvotingbypersonswithdisabilities.Theadvisorycommitteecouldmeet
atleasttwiceayearand,aspartoftheCEOsoverallcommunicationandoutreachstrategy,theresultsofthe
committeesworkcouldbemadepublicinanumberofaccessibleformats.
24

Otherapproachestosocialresearchthatcouldbeappliedtoelectionsandelectoralparticipationare
longitudinalintheirfocusontimeperiods.Eitherretrospectiveorprospectiveinoutlook,longitudinalresearch
involvestakingrepeatedobservationsofpeoplethroughtime.Theseapproachesincludetimeseriesresearch,

52

method,orpurposeforstatisticalanalysis,isthebodyofstudiesthatmeasuretheaccessibility
ofandbarrierstopollingstationsandrelatedelectionproceduresforaspecificgeneral
election.Thesestudies,whicharebasicallydescriptiveresearch,frequentlyaresponsoredand
conductedbydisabilityorganizations,notablyintheUKoverthepastfewdecades.The
knowledgeproducedhereisinstrumental:gatheringinformationtoverifywhetheraccessto
electoralsystemsisgettingbetter,ornot,fordisabledelectors.
Afewstudiesonthistopiccombineamixedmethodologyapproachtotheirresearch.Schur
(1998)isanotableexample,combiningtheuseofawrittenquestionnairewithstandard
psychologicalmeasuresofperceivedefficacyandcontrol,amongothermeasures,alongwith
indepthinterviewsof64peoplewithspinalcordinjury,and,forherdataanalysis,drawingon
thetheoreticalliteratureondisabilityandsuchconceptsasstigma,discriminationand
politicization.
Qualitativeresearchfeaturesprominentlyinthisliterature.Oneformofqualitativeresearchis
legalanalysisofcourtdecisions,legislationandregulationspertainingtovotingandpeoplewith
disabilities.MostofthisliteratureisoftheAmericanexperienceoverthelastthreedecades.A
secondformisphilosophicalorreflexiveanalysis,whichexaminesthevalueassumptionsand
moralcommitmentswithrespecttonotionsofcompetenceandpersonhood.Inthiscase,these
notionsareappraisedinrelationtopersonswithrealorperceivedcognitiveimpairmentsand
mentalhealthconditions.Thisreflexiveanalysishasapracticalimplication,assomestudies
showed,regardinghowtheattitudesofelectionworkersand/orstaffinlongtermcarefacilities
cananddoinfluenceopportunitiesofcertainpeopletoberegisteredtovoteandtoactually
castaballotinanelection.
Takenasawhole,theliteratureindicatesaneedforconductingbothquantitativeand
qualitativeresearchtoaddresstheissuesofvoterparticipation,electoraloutreachactivities
andcommunicationservices.Onthequantitativeresearchside,thereisnocurrentstatistical
analysisofdisabledelectorsinCanada:theircharacteristics;thepredictorsoftheirparticipation
ornonparticipation;andhowtheycomparewithelectorswithoutdisabilities.Researchdesigns
ofthemoresophisticatedquantitativestudiesintheliteratureondisabilityandelectionscould
serveasguides,ifnottemplates,toconductsimilarresearchintheCanadiancontext.
Onthequalitativeresearchside,suchanalysiscangetatthespecificcontextsofelectorswith
divergentkindsofimpairmentsandtheconcreteparticularitiesoflifecircumstancesbyage,
gender,ethnicityandplace.Qualitativetypesofdatacollection(e.g.individualinterviews,focus
groups,fieldworkandparticipantobservations,publicandpersonaldocuments,and
audiovisualmaterials)canhelpdescribehowpeopleunderstanddemocracy,citizenship,
politics,electionsandvotingthemeaningtheseideashaveforindividualstodescribesocial
interactionsandtoexploreprocessesofdecidingtovoteandactingonthatintention;to

whichobserves differentpeopleineachofmultipletimeperiods;casestudyresearch,observingasmallsetof
peopleintenselyacrosstime;acohortstudy,observingacategoryofpeoplewhoshareanexperienceattwoor
moretimes;andapanelstudy,whichinvolvesobservingtheexactsamepeopleattwoormoretimeperiods.

53

discoverhowpeopleinterprettheirexperienceofvoting,including,forinstance,alternative
methodsandnewtechnologiesforvoting;andtodescribeandseektounderstandtheir
interactionswithelectionofficials,staffinnursinghomesandpoliticalpartyworkers.
Thus,whiletheliteratureontheelectoralparticipationofelectorswithdisabilitiesgradually
grows,theoveralldiscussionandfindingspresentedinthisreportsuggestthatresearchis
essentialinthefollowingareas:

54

Thereisaneedtoknowtheextenttowhichcertainfactors,costsandbenefitsaffecting
voterturnoutingeneralapplyequallytoelectorswithdisabilities(Schuretal.2002).

Knowledgeisneededabouthowdifferenttypesofphysical,mentalorintellectual
impairmentsinfluencethelikelihoodofindividualswithdisabilitiestovoteinelections.Are
peoplewithcertainkindsofimpairments(orspecificconfigurationsofimpairments)and
levelsofseveritymoreorlesslikelytovotethanpeoplewithotherkindsofimpairments?

Weknowlittleabouthowethnicityorraceandgender,amongothersocialdimensionsof
identity,interactwithdisabilityinaffectingtheelectoralparticipationofcitizensinCanada.

Officialsingovernment,parliament,disabilitycommunityorganizationsandelectoral
managementbodiesneedtolookattheassumptionsabout,andconceptionsofdisability
thatareembeddedinelectionlaws,policies,administrativemeasuresandotherpractices.
Whatmodels(s)ofdisabilityareproducedorreproduced?Whataretheimplicationsof
recentandproposedreformstounderstandingsofthenatureandcausesofdisablement?
Whatnormsofcitizenshiparereflectedinoutreachpractices?

Whatistheroleandinfluenceofsignificantactorselectoralofficials,headsofhouseholds
orotherfamilymembers,caremanagersorcaregiversinnursinghomesandother
residentialfacilitiesorsupportedaccommodationsinfacilitatingordiscouragingthe
participationofadultswithdisabilitiesinelectionsandinvoting?Thisisanissueofgrowing
importancegiventhattheabsolutenumberofelderlypeoplewithphysicalandcognitive
disabilitiesisincreasingmarkedlyinmanydemocraticcountries.Moreover,anincreasing
numberwillberesidinginnursinghomesandassistedlivingfacilities(Karlawishand
Bonnie2007,881).Wehavelimitedappreciationofthepossibleandactualeffectsofthese
factorsonvotingparticipationbyelectorswithdisabilities.

Thereisaneedforfullerunderstandingofwhatelectoralparticipationmeansforvoters
withdisabilitieswhodocastaballotandthosewhodecidenottovote.Whataretheir
expectations,theirmotivationsandreasons?Asidefromabriefanalysisofthe1997federal
electionbyMcColl(2006),whichisnowsixgeneralelectionsago,wehaveinsufficient
comprehensionoftheintricaciesanddynamicsofthesechoicesandprocesses.

Howistheavailabilityofaccessibletransport,publicorprivate,onvotingdaysinfluencing
thelikelihoodofcastingaballot,andwhatrolemightpoliticalpartyorganizationsand/or
disabilityassociationsand/oradministratorswhoareprovidingservicestoclientsservein
thisregard(Bell,McKayandPhillips2001;Keeleyetal.2008;McColl2006;Schur1998)?

Aneedexistsforthedevelopmentofguidancetohealthcareprofessionals,familymembers
andlongtermcarestaffforappropriateformsofsupporttocitizenswithcognitive
impairments,suchasdementia,toparticipateintheelectoralprocess(Karlawishetal.
2004).

Considerationneedstobegiventoissuesofwhatshouldbedonewherethere[are]
doubtsaboutthecapacityofsomeonewithadiagnosedlearningdisabilitytovoteand
howtheircapacitytovotemightbesupported(Redley2008,378).

Insummary,acrossliberaldemocraticnationssignificanteffortsarebeingmadetoexpand
accessibilityandoutreachmeasuresdirectedatelectorswithdisabilities.Thesepositive
changesaretheresultofdeliberatepolicychangesbyparliamentsandelectoralmanagement
bodieswithinapoliticalandsocialenvironmentofdisabilityactivismanddemocraticvaluesof
equalityrightsandfullcitizenship.Therepertoireofvotingpathwayshasincreasedand
deepenedforthishistoricallymarginalizedgroupofcitizens.Adultswithdisabilitieshavemore
pathwaystoengagewithelectoralprocessesandtocastvotestodaythanevenjustadecade
ago,althoughbarrierscontinueandmuchremainstobedonetoadvanceelectoral
participationforallpersonswithdisabilities.

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY25
Adam,Mohammed.2011.OntariansCanVoteEveryDayUntilElection.OttawaCitizen.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Ontarians+vote+every+until+election/5361079/stor
y.html.
AllianceforEqualityofBlindCanadians.2008.MakingCanadasVotingSystemTruly
Accessible.http://www.blindcanadians.ca/publications/briefs/2008makingcanadas
votingsystemtrulyaccessible.
.2011.Elections.http://www.blindcanadians.ca/issues/civicissues/elections.
AmericanFoundationfortheBlind.2011.VoterswithDisabilitiesDeservetheOpportunityto
VotePrivately.
http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=3&TopicID=141&DocumentID=1954
Appelbaum,P.S.2000.IVote.ICount:MentalDisabilityandtheRighttoVote.Psychiatric
Services51,pp.849850,863.
Appelbaum,P.S.,R.J.BonnieandJ.H.T.Karlawish.2005.TheCapacitytoVoteofPersonswith
Alzheimersdisease.AmericanJournalofPsychiatry162,pp.20942100.
AustralianElectoralCommission.2008.DisabilityActionPlan20082011.
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/disability_action_plan/index.htm.
.2010a.ElectoralBackgrounder:CompulsoryVoting.
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/files/2010ebcompulsory
voting.pdf.
2010b.WaystoVote.http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Ways_to_vote/index.htm.
.2011a.ElectoralRollFrequentlyAskedQuestions.
http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Electoral_Roll.htm.
.2011b.ElectorsUnabletoSignTheirNameDuetoPhysicalIncapacity.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Electors_unable_to_sign_their
_name.htm.
.2011c.GeneralEnrolment:FrequentlyAskedQuestions.
http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Enrolment.htm.

25

AllURLsoperationalasofMarch,2012.

55

AustralianGovernment.2009.NationalDisabilityStrategy.
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/progserv/govtint/Pages/nds.aspx.
AustralianGovernment.Nodate.PeoplewithDisabilities.
http://australia.gov.au/people/peoplewithdisabilities.
AustralianGovernment:AttorneyGeneralsDepartment.2011.HumanRights&Anti
Discrimination:PartBParticipationandPublicLife.
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Humanrightsandantidiscrimination_PartB
Participationinpoliticalandpubliclife(article29).
AustralianHumanRightsCommission.2006.SubmissionoftheHumanRightsandEqual
OpportunityCommissiontotheSenateFinanceandPublicAdministrationCommittee
regardingElectoralandReferendumAmendment(ElectoralIntegrityandOtherMeasures)
Bill2005.http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/electoral20060309.html.
.2008.AccessibilityofElectionProcedurestoPeoplewithDisabilities.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/inquiries/electoral/electoral.htm.
.2010.TheRighttoVoteIsNotEnjoyedEquallybyAllAustralians.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/vote/index.html.
BBCNews.2001.BlindVotersGetSecretBallot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1235877.stm.
Beckett,A.A.2006.CitizenshipandVulnerability:DisabilityandIssuesofSocialandPolitical
Engagement,London:PalgraveMacmillan.
Bell,DorothyM.,ColinMcKayandKathrynJ.Phillips.2001.OvercomingtheBarrierstoVoting
ExperiencedbyPeoplewithLearningDisabilities.BritishJournalofLearningVDisabilities9,
4:12227.
Boklaschuk,Shannon.2003.CitytoOfferBrailleBallotsinNextMunicipalElection.Saskatoon,
StarPhoenix,May13.ReprintedinCanadianBlindMonitor,15.
http://www.blindcanadians.ca/publications/cbm/15/cityofferbrailleballotsnext
municipalelection.
Cameron,David,andFraserValentine(eds.).2001.DisabilityandFederalism:Comparing
DifferentApproachestoFullParticipation.Montreal&Kingston:McGillQueensUniversity
Press.
CanadianAssociationforCommunityLiving.2011.Elections.http://www.cacl.ca/cacl
action/governmentrelations/elections.

56

CanadianHumanRightsReporter.2010.ElectionsCanadaOrderedtoGuaranteeAccessibility.
HumanRightsDigest11,2:1,3.http://www.cdnhr
reporter.ca/xchrr_dr/sites/default/files/chrrDigest_201002.pdf.
CanadianHumanRightsTribunal.2010.JamesPeterHughesv.ElectionsCanada.CHRR
DOC.100379,2010CHRT4(CanLII).
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Hughes&language=en&searchTitle=Federal+
+Canadian+Human+Rights+Tribunal&path=/en/ca/chrt/doc/2010/2010chrt4/2010chrt4.ht
ml.
CanadianNationalInstitutefortheBlind.2011a.AODATakesStockofPartiesCommitments
toOntarianswithDisabilities.http://www.cnib.ca/en/Pages/Electionsupdate2011
AODA.aspx.
.2011b.GetSetVote!http://www.cnib.ca/en/living/independent
living/Pages/electionscanada1007.aspx.
.2011c.PCCandidateCommitstoHelpingAlbertanswithVisionLossCastTheirVotes.
http://www.cnib.ca/en/alberta/pages/PCcandidatecommitmenttoAlbertanswithvision
loss.aspx.
CapabilityScotland.2010.PollsApart:HelpUstoImproveAccesstoVotinginScotland.
http://www.capabilityscotland.org.uk/newsevents/latestnews/pollsaparthelpusto
improveaccesstovotinginscotland/.
Cooper,HarrisM.1998.SynthesizingResearch:AGuideforLiteratureReviews,ThirdEdition.
London:Sage.
CouncilofCanadianswithDisabilities.2010.AVoteforChange:CanadianHumanRights
TribunalDecisionSafeguardsAccessonVotingDay.AbilitiesMagazine.
http://www.abilities.ca/human_rights/2010/05/13/ccd_on_votingday_access/.
.2011.LiberalPlatformPutsDisabilityIssuesontheAgenda;CCDChallengesOthersto
DotheSame.AbilitiesMagazine.
http://www.abilities.ca/organizations/2011/04/19/ccd_press_release_april_4_2011_liberal
_platform/.
Courtney,JohnC.2010.Elections.InWilliamCross(ed.),AuditingCanadianDemocracy.
Vancouver:UniversityofBritishColumbiaPress.
DAubin,AprilandDeborahStienstra.2004.AccesstoElectoralSuccess:Challengesand
OpportunitiesforCandidateswithDisabilitiesinCanada.ElectoralInsight6,1:814.
Davidson,DianeR.andMiriamLapp.2004.TheEvolutionofFederalVotingRightsfor
CanadianswithDisabilities.ElectoralInsight6,1:1521.

57

DeafAotearoa.2011.2011ElectionsandReferendum.http://www.deaf.co.nz/for
you/governmentservices/2011elections.
Direct.gov.2011.VotinginElectionsforDisabledVoters.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/Everydaylifeandaccess/Everydayaccess/DG_4
018637.
Disability.gov.2011.Voting.
https://www.disability.gov/search/list?max=50&submit=Search&q=voting&facetPrefix=1%2
FCivil+Rights&fq=topics%3A%22Civil+Rights%22&format=html
Drew,Christopher.2007a.OverhaulPlanforVoteSystemWillBeDelayed.TheNewYork
Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20vote.html?scp=9&sq=disability%20el
ection%20voting%20access&st=cse.
.2007b.AccessibilityIsntOnlyHurdleinVotingSystemOverhaul.TheNewYorkTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/washington/21vote.html?scp=10&sq=disability%20e
lection%20voting%20access&st=cse.
East,Robin.2011.RobinEastsVotingExperienceMay2,2011FederalElection.Alliancefor
EqualityofBlindCanadians.
http://www.blindcanadians.ca/participate/blog/2011/05/robineastsvotingexperience
may22011federalelection.
ElectionsAlberta.2007.CommonQuestions.
http://www.elections.ab.ca/Public%20Website/faq.htm.
ElectionsBC.2011a.VoterswithDisabilities.
http://www.elections.bc.ca/index.php/voting/voterswithdisabilities/.
.2011b.Voting.http://www.elections.bc.ca/index.php/voting/.
ElectionsCanada.2006.ReportoftheChiefElectoralOfficerofCanadaonthe39thGeneral
ElectionofJanuary23,2006.http://www.elections.ca/res/rep/off/statreport2006_e.pdf.
.2010a.CompendiumofElectionAdministrationinCanada:AComparativeOverviewas
ofJune15,2010.Ottawa:ElectionsCanada.
.2010b.ElectionsCanadaProvidesAssistiveVotingDeviceinWinnipegNorthBy
Election.NewsReleasesandMediaAdvisories.Ottawa:November22,2010.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=nov2210&dir=pre&lang=e.
.2011a.AccessibilityoftheElectoralSystem.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90505&lang=e.

58

.2011b.InformationforVoterswithSpecialNeeds.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=spe&document=index&lang=e.
.2011c.CompendiumofElectionAdministrationinCanada:AComparativeOverviewas
ofOctober25,2011.http://www.elections.ca/res/loi/com/compoverview2011oct_e.pdf.
2011d.ReportoftheChiefElectoralOfficerofCanadafollowingtheNovember29,2010
ByElections,section1andAnnex.
http://www.elections.ca/res/rep/off/ovr_2010/ovr2010.pdf.
ElectionsManitoba.2011.AccessibilityServices&VotingOptions.
http://electionsmanitoba.ca.
ElectionsNewBrunswick.Nodate.FrequentlyAskedQuestions:Accessibilityand
Accommodation.http://www1.gnb.ca/elections/FAQs/FAQcategory
e.asp?CATEGORYID=6&TYPE=2.
.2006.ElectorswithDisabilities.http://www.gnb.ca/elections/10prov/disabilityinfo
e.asp.
ElectionsNewfoundland&Labrador.2011.FrequentlyAskedQuestions.
http://www.elections.gov.nl.ca/elections/FAQ/index.html.
ElectionsNewZealand.2011.DisabilityResources.
http://www.elections.org.nz/study/disabilityresources/.
ElectionsNorthwestTerritories.2011.GuideforVoters.http://www.electionsnwt.ca/wp
content/upLoads/2011/08/guideforvoters_electionsnwt_2011.pdf.
ElectionsNovaScotia.2006.SpecialNeeds.http://electionsnovascotia.ca/specialneeds.asp.
ElectionsNunavut.2011.PeopleswithDisabilitiesWaystoVote.
http://www.elections.nu.ca/apps/authoring/dspPage.aspx?page=voter_how.
ElectionsOntario.2011.HowtoVote.http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/howtovote.aspx.
.2011a.ReportonPublicConsultationsonAccessibleVotingLocationsforthe2011
GeneralElection.http://www.elections.on.ca/enCA/AccReport.htm
ElectionsPrinceEdwardIsland.Nodate.FrequentlyAskedQuestions.
http://www.electionspei.ca/provincial/guide/faq.php.
ElectionsQuebec.2011.IfYouHaveDifficultiesVoting.
http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/english/provincial/voting/ifyouhavedifficulties
voting.php.

59

ElectionsSaskatchewan.2011a.VoterswithDisabilities.
http://www.elections.sk.ca/voters/voterswithdisabilities.
_____.2011b.WaystoVote.http://www.elections.sk.ca/voters/waystovote.
ElectionsYukon.2011.Elections.http://www.electionsyukon.gov.yk.ca/elections.html.
ElectoralCommission.2001.Factsheet0205:AccesstoVotingforDisabledPeople.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/001
9/13258/Accesstovotingfordisabledpeople_179876126__E__N__S__W__.pdf.
.2008.AccessibilityFrequentlyAskedQuestions.AboutMyVote.
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/faq/accessibility.aspx.
..2011.NSWECActionPlan201012:EqualAccesstoDemocracy.
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/publications/plans/nswec_equal_access_to_democracy_
plan_2010__2012.
FederalCourtofCanada.2010.Jodhanv.Canada(AttorneyGeneralofCanada).2010FC1197.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2010/2010fc1197/2010fc1197.pdfl.
Ferenc,Leslie.2003.MarkhamFirstinNorthAmericatoVoteOnline.HamiltonSpectator.
http://www.blindcanadians.ca/publications/cbm/15/markhamfirstnorthamericavote
online.
Gidengil,Elizabeth,etal.2010.Citizens.InWilliamCross(ed).,AuditingCanadianDemocracy.
Vancouver:UniversityofBritishColumbiaPress.
Harrington,J.C.1999.PencilsWithinReachandaWalkmanorTwo:MakingtheSecretBallot
AvailabletoVotersWhoAreBlindorHaveOtherPhysicalDisabilities.TexasJournalonCivil
LibertiesandCivilRights4,2:87105.
Henderson,VictorW.,andDavidA.Drachman.2002.Dementia,ButterflyBallots,andVoter
Competence.Neurology68,7:99596.
Howe,Paul,RichardJohnstonandAndrBlais(eds).2005.StrengtheningCanadianDemocracy.
Montral:TheInstituteforResearchonPublicPolicy.
Howell,Elizabeth.2011.JohnPoulos,36:MakesVotingAccessible.TheGlobeandMail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/reportonbusiness/careers/careersleadership/top40
under40/top40under402010/article2001361.ece.
Howlett,Karen.2009.OntarioBillAimstoBoostLowVoterTurnout.TheGlobeandMail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontariobillaimstoboostlowvoter
turnout/article1393707/.(Requiressignin).

60

HumanResourcesandSkillsDevelopmentCanada.2010.FederalDisabilityReport:The
GovernmentofCanadasAnnualReportonDisabilityIssues.Gatineau:HRSDC.
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/reports/fdr/2010/page10.shtml#a1.
.2011.TheNationalStakeholderConsultationsReport:UnitedNationsConventiononthe
RightsofPersonswithDisabilities.Gatineau:HRSDC.
Hunt,Robyn.2001.NewZealandBlindGroupsPoundNailintheCoffinofPaternalism.
DisabilityWorld10(SeptemberOctober):
http://www.blindcanadians.ca/publications/cbm/11/newzealandblindgroupspoundnail
coffinpaternalism.
Hurme,SallyBalch,andPaulS.Appelbaum.2007.DefiningandAssessingCapacitytoVote:The
EffectofMentalImpairmentontheRightsofVoters.TheMcGeorgeLawReview38,pp.
93179.
IndependentLivingCanada.WhatisIL2011a.http://www.ilcanada.ca/article/whatisil
148.asp
.2011b.CCDElectionChallenge.http://www.ilcanada.ca/article/ccdelection
challenge444.asp.
Jaeger,P.T.2004.TheSocialImpactofanAccessibleeDemocracy.JournalofDisabilityPolicy
Studies15,1:1926.
Johnston,Richard,J.ScottMatthewsandAmandaBittner.2007.TurnoutandthePartySystem
inCanada,19882004.ElectoralStudies26:73545.
Kapica,Jack.2009.CanadianCitytoTestElectronicVoting.TheGlobeandMail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/canadiancitytotestelectronic
voting/article1006865/.
Karlawish,J.H.T.,andR.J.Bonnie.2007.VotingbyElderlyPersonswithCognitiveImpairment:
LessonsfromOtherDemocraticNations.TheMcGeorgeLawReview38,pp.880916.
Karlawish,J.H.,etal.2002.DoPersonswithDementiaVote?Neurology58,pp.110002.
Karlawish,J.H.T.,etal.2004.AddressingtheEthical,Legal,andSocialIssuesRaisedbyVoting
byPersonswithDementia.JAMA292,11:134550.
Karlawish,J.H.T.,etal.2006.PolicyStatementonVotingbyPersonswithDementiaResidingin
LongTermCareFacilities.AlzheimersandDementia:TheJournaloftheAlzheimers
Association2,3:24345.
Karlawish,J.H.T.,etal.2008.IdentifyingtheBarriersandChallengestoVotingbyResidentsin
NursingHomesandAssistedLivingSettings.JournalofAging&SocialPolicy20,1:6579.

61

Keeley,H.,etal.2008.Participationinthe2005GeneralElectionbyAdultswithIntellectual
Disabilities.JournalofIntellectualDisabilityResearch52,3:17581.
Leclerc,Michel.2004.TheEvolutionofAccesstoVotingforPeoplewithDisabilitiesin
Quebec.ElectoralInsight6,1:2224.
Malatest,R.A.,&Associates.2011.NationalYouthSurveyReport.Ottawa:ElectionsCanada.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/nysr&document=index&la
ng=e.
Matas,Robert.2011.Crosscheck.TheGlobeandMail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/britishcolumbia/bc
politics/crosscheck/article1869637/.
McColl,MaryAnn.2006.ElectoralParticipationAmongDisabledPeople.InMaryAnnMcColl
andLynJongbloed(eds.),DisabilityandSocialPolicyinCanada,2nded.Concord,ON:
CaptusUniversityPress.
McColl,MaryAnn,andLynJongbloed.2006.DirectionsfortheFuture.InMaryAnnMcColl
andLynJongbloed(eds.),DisabilityandSocialPolicyinCanada,2nded.Concord,ON:
CaptusUniversityPress.
McCreath,Graeme.2011.ThePoliticsofBlindness:FromCharitytoParity.Vancouver:Granville
IslandPublishing.
McMahon,Tasmin.2011.Infographic:WhyPeopleDidntVoteinthe2010FederalElection.
NationalPost.http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/05/infographicwhypeopledidnt
voteinthe2011federalelection/.
Meekosha,Helen,andL.Dowse.1997.EnablingCitizenship:Gender,Disabilityand
Citizenship.FeministReview(Autumn):4972.
Milner,Henry.2002.CivicLiteracy:HowInformedCitizensMakeDemocracyWork.Hanover,
NH:UniversityPressofNewEngland.
NationalDisabilityRightsNetwork.2011.Voting.http://www.napas.org/issues/voting/.
NewZealand,OfficeforDisabilityIssues.2011.AchievingaFullInclusiveSociety2011:
ImplementingtheDisabilityActionPlan.http://www.odi.govt.nz/nzds/progress
reports/2011/implementingthedisabilityactionplan.html.
Ontario.2007.CountUsIn:RemovingBarrierstoPoliticalParticipation.Toronto:Ministryof
CommunityandSocialServices,AccessibilityDirectorateofOntario.
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/publications/accessibility/allCandidatesMeeting/table
OfContents.aspx.

62

OSullivan,J.L.2001.VotingandNursingHomeResidents:ASurveyofPracticesandPolicies.
JournalofHealthCareLawandPolicy4,2:32553.
Ott,B.R.,W.C.HeindelandG.D.Papandonatos.2003.ASurveyofVoterParticipationby
CognitivelyImpairedElderlyPatients.Neurology60,pp.154648.
Owen,Bruce.2010.DeviceHelpsBlindVotersCastBallots.WinnipegFreePress.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/devicehelpsblindvoterscastballots
105238848.html.
Payton,Laura.2011.ElectionsCanadaLobbiesforTestofOnlineVoting:InternetandSocial
MediaPromptLookatReformingElectionLaws.CBCNews.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/08/17/polonlinevoting.html.
PeoplewithDisability.2010.PWDEBulletin:DisabilityandDecisionFederalElection2010.
http://www.pwd.org.au/documents/pubs/EBElection2010.html.
.2011.2010FederalElectionCampaign.
http://www.pwd.org.au/systemic/election2010.html.
Pilon,Dennis.2007.ThePoliticsofVoting:ReformingCanadasElectoralSystem.Toronto:
EmondMontgomeryPublications.
PollsApart.2010.2010Report.http://www.pollsapart.org.uk/docs/Scope
Polls%20Apart%205%20Report.pdf.
Pothier,Dianne.2006.Appendix:LegalDevelopmentsintheSupremeCourtofCanada
RegardingDisability.InDiannePothierandRichardDevlin(eds.),CriticalDisabilityTheory:
EssaysinPhilosophy,Politics,Politics,andLaw.Vancouver:UniversityofBritishColumbia
Press.
Prince,MichaelJ.2004.PersonswithDisabilitiesandCanadasElectoralSystems:Gradually
AdvancingtheDemocraticRighttoVote.ElectoralInsight6,1:27.
.2009.AbsentCitizens:DisabilityPoliticsandPolicyinCanada.Toronto:Universityof
TorontoPress.
.2010.WhatAboutaDisabilityRightsActforCanada?PracticesandLessonsfrom
America,Australia,andtheUnitedKingdom.CanadianPublicPolicy,36,2:199214.
Rae,John.2010.TheProcessofCivicEngagement.
http://www.blindcanadians.ca/publications/briefs/2010processcivicengagement.
Redley,Marcus.2008.CitizenswithLearningDisabilitiesandtheRighttoVote.Disability&
Society23,4:37584.

63

Redley,Marcus,JulianC.HughesandAnthonyHolland.2010.VotingandMentalCapacity.
BritishMedicalJournal341:c4085.
Rioux,MarciaH.,andMichaelJ.Prince.2002.TheCanadianPoliticalLandscapeofDisability:
PolicyPerspectives,SocialStatus,InterestGroupsandtheRightsMovement.InAlan
Puttee(ed.),Federalism,DemocracyandDisabilityPolicyinCanada.Montreal&Kingston:
McGillQueensUniversityPress.
Rollason,Kevin.2010.VotingMachinesSeenasWaytoMotivateVoters.WinnipegFreePress.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/votingmachinesseenaswaytomotivate
voters104327929.html.
Sabatino,CharlesP.,andEdwardD.Spurgeon.2007.IntroductionFacilitatingVotingas
PeopleAge:ImplicationsofCognitiveImpairment.TheMcGeorgeLawReview38,pp.843
59.
Sayer,Su.2010.PoliticiansMustRecogniseThatPeoplewithDisabilitiesHaveaRighttoVote
Too.TheGuardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/jan/20/learning
disabilitiesrightsvoteelection?INTCMP=SRCH.
Schriner,K.,andA.Batavia.2001.TheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct:DoesItSecurethe
FundamentalRighttoVote?PolicyStudiesJournal29,4:66373.
Schriner,K.,andL.Ochs.2000.NoRightIsMorePrecious:VotingRightsandPeoplewith
IntellectualandDevelopmentalDisabilities.PolicyResearchBrief11,1:115.
Schriner,K.,L.Ochs,andT.Shields.2000.DemocraticDilemmas:NotesontheADAandVoting
RightsofPeoplewithCognitiveandEmotionalImpairments.BerkeleyJournalof
EmploymentandLaborLaw21,1:43772.
Schriner,K.,andT.G.Shields.1998.EmpowermentofthePoliticalKind:TheRoleofDisability
ServiceOrganizationsinEncouragingPeoplewithDisabilitiestoVote.Journalof
Rehabilitation64,2:3337.
Schur,L.A.1998.DisabilityandthePsychologyofPoliticalParticipation.JournalofDisability
Studies9,2:331.
Schur,L.2003.ContendingwiththeDoubleHandicap:PoliticalActivismAmongWomenWith
Disabilities.Women&Politics251/2:3161.
Schur,L.A.,andD.L.Kruse.2000.WhatDeterminesVoterTurnout?:LessonsfromCitizenswith
Disabilities.SocialScienceQuarterly81,2:57187.
Schur,L.,etal.2002.EnablingDemocracy:DisabilityandVoterTurnout.PoliticalResearch
Quarterly55,1:16790.

64

Schur,L.,T.Shields,T.,andK.Schriner.2005.GenerationalCohorts,GroupMembership,and
PoliticalParticipationbyPeoplewithDisabilities.PoliticalResearchQuarterly58,3:487
96.
Scope.2009.WhyAreDisabledPeopleStillPollsApart?http://www.scope.org.uk/news/why
aredisabledpeoplestillpollsapart.
.2010a.PollsApart:OpeningElectionstoDisabledPeople.
http://www.scope.org.uk/campaigns/inclusionandparticipation/elections.
.2010b.ScopeCallsonLocalAuthoritiestoEndExclusionofDisabledVoters.
http://www.scope.org.uk/news/pollsapart.
Seelye,KatharineQ.2001.DisabledGainingonAccesstoVote.TheNewYorkTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/27/politics/27VOTE.html?scp=2&sq=disability%20electi
on%20voting%20access&st=cse.
Shields,T.G.,K.F.Schriner,andK.Schriner.1998.InfluencesonthePoliticalParticipationof
PeoplewithDisabilities.JournalofDisabilityPolicyStudies9,2:7791.
Smith,A.,andC.P.Sabatino.2004.VotingbyResidentsofNursingHomesandAssistedLiving
Facilities:StateLawAccommodation.Bifocal26,1:12,410.
UnitedResponse.2010.EveryVoteCountsCampaign.
http://www.unitedresponse.org.uk/2010/01/everyvotecountscampaign/.
USElectionAssistanceCommission.2010a.2010AccessibleVotingTechnologyInitiative.
http://www.eac.gov/payments_and_grants/2009_accessible_voting_technology_initiative.
aspx.
.2010b.ElectionManagementGuidelinesChapter19:Accessibility.
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/EMG%20chapt%2019%20august%2026%202010.
pdf.
.2010c.QuickStartGuideAccessibility.
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/Quick%20StartAccessibility.pdf.
.2010d.QuickStartGuideServingVotersinLongTermCareFacilities.
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/Quick%20Start
Serving%20Voters%20in%20LongTerm%20Care%20Facilities.pdf.
.2010e.ResourcesforVoterswithDisabilities.
http://www.eac.gov/voter_resources/resources_for_voters_with_disabilities.aspx.

65

USCensusBureau.2011.VotingandRegistrationintheElectionofNovember2010Detailed
Tables.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2010/tables.html.
USDepartmentofJustice.2002.HelpAmericaVoteActof2002.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/hava/pl252_107.pdf.
.2004.ADAChecklistforVotingPlaces.AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.
http://www.ada.gov/votingchecklist.htm.
.2011.VotingSection.http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/.
USGeneralAccountingOffice.2001.GAOReport02107VoterswithDisabilities:Accessto
PollingPlacesandAlternativeVotingMethods.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02107.pdf.
Vorhaus,J.2005.Citizenship,CompetenceandProfoundDisability.JournalofPhilosophyof
Education39,3:46175.
Ward,Andrew,PaulM.A.BakerandNathanW.Moon.2009.EnsuringtheEnfranchisementof
PeoplewithDisabilities.JournalofDisabilityPolicyStudies20,2:7992.
Weaver,Matt.2001.PollImposition:GeneralElectionWasTrialforDisabled.TheGuardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jul/18/disability.guardiansocietysupplement?INT
CMP=SRCH.
WesternAustraliaElectoralCommission.2011.BeInvolved:DisabilityAccessandInclusion
Plan20072012.
http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/about/documents/WAEC%20Disability%20Plan.pdf.
WorldHealthOrganization(WHO).2011.WorldReportonDisability.Geneva:WHOPress.

66