Historically, voters in the United States have returned ballots using various emerging methods—including early voting, mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and electronic submission—bringing greater uncertainty to election administration and planning resources, staffing, and logistics. Technology is driving these methods; however, new technologies introduce complexities and risks that are not present in traditional systems. Existing election administration planning tools are often too generic or difficult to implement, raising concerns about unmet voter needs. Meanwhile, the implementation of new equipment has been given little consideration regarding how the technology would impact the overall voting system.

As the population and participation of voters continues to increase with the adoption of new forms of voting and voting equipment, responsive and robust election preparation methods are imperative, especially when decision-making is under intense scrutiny. The voting population spans a spectrum of individuals with varying education levels, gender identities, sexualities, races, neurodiversities, disabilities, anthropometries, ages, experiences, languages, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

To uphold democratic values, the voting process must be straightforward, usable, and accessible for all eligible voters, ensuring they can cast ballots independently and privately.

In the United States, voting is a right, including the right not to vote at all. With the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, technology has been incorporated into almost every aspect of American elections. Despite legislative advancements and technological progress, many voters with disabilities still face barriers to full participation in elections. Voters with disabilities, one of the largest minority populations in the United States, face particular difficulties with respect to polling location accessibility, ballot design, and voting equipment. As of 2023, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the voting age population includes 39.3 million individuals with disabilities (15%) [1]. This group overlaps into 20.2 million people with ambulatory difficulties, 14.9 million with independent living difficulties, 14.2 million with cognitive difficulties, 11.3 million with hearing difficulties, 7.3 million with vision difficulties, and 7.3 million with self-care difficulties [1]. Furthermore, approximately 43 million Americans struggle with illiteracy, and 41 million speak a language other than English at home, potentially creating difficulties in reading or understanding ballots [2,3,4]. These individuals, while eligible voters, often encounter obstacles that limit their ability to participate fully in elections. Despite the efforts of institutions to provide solutions to improve the voting experience for the majority of voters, the impact on the population of voters with disabilities and language comprehension difficulties is unclear and largely unstudied.

Accessibility laws in the late 1900s, such as the Voting Rights Act (1965), the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (1984), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), sought to address these barriers but fell short in guaranteeing fully independent voting access for people with disabilities. HAVA represented a turning point by funding new voting technologies to enhance usability, privacy, and accessibility for voters with disabilities. However, while technological innovations like direct recording electronic (DRE) systems and ballot marking devices (BMDs) were introduced, they brought new usability, privacy, and security challenges. For example, DRE systems, an electronic way to mark and record a ballot, streamlined voting processes, and offered accessibility features (such as audio devices, tactile devices, and sip-and-puff). However, DREs required voters to navigate complex interfaces, which posed challenges for individuals with limited computer skills, cognitive or physical disabilities, or minimal education [5, 6]. Similarly, BMDs, which print physical ballots digitally marked by voters, also improved accessibility but raised privacy concerns when their ballots visually differed from standard ones [7]. These disparities can inadvertently identify voters with disabilities, compromising their anonymity. Another issue about the shift to electronic voting was the security risk that came with it. In 2017, many states shifted to using hand-marked paper ballots while offering BMDs for accessibility [8]. Despite advancements and new technologies, studies from the 2022 election show that 2.2 million (14%) voters with disabilities encountered challenges—a rate ten percentage points higher than that of voters without disabilities [9].

---

To uphold democratic values, the voting process must be straightforward, usable, and accessible for all eligible voters

---

In over two decades since HAVA, research on voting equipment usability for individuals with disabilities remains limited. Human factors, usability experts, and voting technology developers have continued to produce new BMDs and DREs and are making recommendations and guidelines to reduce errors and increase accessibility. Notable efforts like the "Voting Solutions for All People" (VSAP) initiative incorporated diverse feedback, including input from individuals with disabilities, to enhance the usability and accessibility of voting systems [10]. However, most research focuses on specific disabilities or isolated aspects of usability, leaving gaps in comprehensive testing across all disability types.

Additionally, guidelines like the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG 2.0) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) usability standards provide frameworks for creating accessible voting systems [11]. These guidelines recommend features like audio instructions for voters with visual impairments, simplified language for voters with low literacy, and intuitive navigation to reduce errors. However, adherence to these standards remains voluntary in most states, and the extent to which current voting systems comply is unclear. This gap underscores the need for further research to assess and improve voting technologies with a focus on accessible voting equipment. Accessibility features must be evaluated not only for their effectiveness in addressing the needs of those with various disabilities, but also for their ability to provide an equitable voting experience. For instance, audio functions should accommodate multiple languages, adjustable volumes, and sound cues, while ballot designs should use plain language and consistent formatting to improve understanding for all voters. These functions impact different disabilities in different ways, as someone with a hearing difficulty wouldn't use the audio function, but someone with a vision difficulty would.

The question, "How many eligible voters use the different BMDs and DREs, and what disability types do they have?" is key to determining the impact technology has on in-person voting.

To see how many people are affected by this technology and the specific breakdown of disability types, data from the Verified Voting Equipment database^a and demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau was be used to estimate the number of voters affected by each voting system. Data on voting equipment from the 2024 presidential election was collected from Verified Voting, and based on the FIPS Code of the equipment used, the 2023 five-year estimate Census data was gathered, edited to sum ages 18 and up, and matched to the corresponding equipment in Microsoft Excel. The Census data was first input via U.S. counties and then broken down by county subdivision when necessary. (One location, Greenleaf Village, Wisconsin, is a new location to vote in 2023 and is not included in this analysis.) Each location was paired with an accessible device and the number of eligible voters in the area, resulting in Table 1, which shows the totals of the eligible voters summed up and separated by voting equipment. Not only does the data highlight the population of people with disabilities, but it is also broken down by the different accessibility types listed in the U.S. Census.

The most used accessible voting devices in the 2024 election were the Election Systems and Software ExpressVote (14.7 million), Dominion ImageCast X BMD (6.9 million), and the Hart Intercivic Verity Touch Writer (2.9 million). Collectively, Election Day accessible voting devices serve 40.4 million voters with disabilities, representing 15% of the eligible voting population. These three most popular machines serve a total of 24.5 million people, representing 60.6% of the total population with a disability, and the ExpressVote alone represents 36%. A small change in any of these devices can have a considerable impact on the way people vote. However, the extent to which these machines adhere to the VVSG 2.0 guidelines remains unclear and requires further investigation. The integration of accessible voting technology is pivotal in ensuring individuals with disabilities can participate in elections equitably. As technology advances, there is a need to prioritize usability, privacy, and accessibility in the system's design to reduce barriers, foster participation, and ensure voting is inclusive for all voters.

---

Accessibility features must be evaluated not only for their effectiveness in addressing the needs of those with various disabilities, but also for their ability to provide an equitable voting experience

---

The challenges outlined underscore the critical need for research, user-centered design, and data-driven improvements to election technology. While legislation like HAVA has catalyzed advancements in voting accessibility, persistent gaps in usability and equitable access highlight the importance of continuous innovation.

Meanwhile, even with HAVA funds being doled out inconsistently in recent years and with threats that they may be "running out," election administrators are constantly being asked to do more with less. They are being asked to provide more ways to support voting to more voters. Pandemic challenges spurred election administrations to respond in a multifaceted approach to support elections through more alternative methods. In turn, more voters cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election than ever in history (158.4 million) [12]. Following that presidential election, some options were withdrawn or access altered due to various state laws and regulations. Yet, the following 2024 presidential election had the second-highest turnout in U.S. history at approximately 152.3 million votes [12, 13]. With that said, it is not clear how many voters with disabilities voted in either of these elections. If we assume 15% of them did, then that's between 23.76 million and 22.845 million votes, respectively. In either of those elections, that number of voters could swing the outcome of the popularity vote. As a matter of fact, the usability of any of these top three machines could swing the outcome of an election. This does not even include the argument that anyone can use these machines, as well as the question of whether people do use the machines, and the basic concept that if the voting technology is truly well-designed for usability, then it should be good for all eligible voters to use. By addressing these challenges, the United States can ensure voting technology fulfills its goal of facilitating fair and independent participation for all eligible voters, including the 40.4 million individuals with disabilities.

As the U.S. continues to adopt more emerging voting methods driven by technological innovation, it must be prepared for the complexities and risks that these systems can introduce. While voting technology has made significant strides in addressing accessibility challenges, much work remains to ensure it meets the needs of all eligible voters. These challenges and continued disenfranchisement illustrate the need for computer systems and engineering tools for the betterment of elections and, to make democracy more efficient, equitable, and adaptable across the U.S. Comprehensive research and adherence to user-centered design principles are essential to overcoming existing flaws and advancing the accessibility, usability, and security of voting systems. The diversity of the voting population requires solutions that are inclusive to all, and only through these efforts can the United States achieve an election process that truly provides equitable opportunities for all citizens, including those with disabilities.

We need your help. There are a few resources you can look at for ideas to get started. The Center for Civic Design, a non-profit organization, has been working on usability and design in elections, with field guides and training materials for election officials. Advocacy groups, such as Common Cause and the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), have worked tirelessly to support voters with disabilities in specific cases in jurisdictions and nationally. Most recently, academic societies are sharing their perspectives; for example, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society published a Policy Statement on Voting Systems,^b which details ways in which various involvement in elections can take root and grow for a more participatory democracy from the field of human systems and engineering. Academia is also gaining more momentum in this area in recent years and could really use your perspective and collaborations. Researchers at RiceVotes have been collectively looking at elections through the intersection of computer science, psychology, and political science in user experience and voting machines, as well as security protocols. Computer science professors at the California Institute of Technology, the University of Florida, and the University of Rhode Island have been assessing various levels of impact on the design of voting technology, usability and accessibility, security, public service software, social media, and algorithms that impact democracy. At the Engineering for Democracy Institute at the University of Rhode Island, we are committed to advancing research and engineering solutions in the election space. Join us through our STEM for Elections Network^c to help shape the future of our elections.

There are plenty of areas where you can participate: interface and software design, hardware design, usability assessment, security analysis, data analysis, development of new technologies, etc. The STEM fields are needed to create transdisciplinary approaches that could contribute meaningfully to making voting systems better for all. Together, we can help bridge the gap between innovation and usability to ensure every voice is heard. Let's help do this together.

  References

[1] U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2023: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables. Table S1810, Disability Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1810?q=disability&g=010XX00US

[2] National Center for Education Statistics. Adult Literacy in the United States. U.S. Department of Education. 2019; https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp

[3] Summers, K. and Langford, J. The impact of literacy on usable and accessible electronic voting. In Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to the Human Environment and Culture. UAHCI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNISA, vol 9178). Springer, Cham, 2015, 248–257; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20687-5_24

[4] Election Assistance Commission. Effective designs for the administration of federal elections. 2007; https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/LPS103554

[5] Everett, S. P. et al. Electronic voting machines versus traditional methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, 2008.

[6] Jastrzembski, T. S. and Charness, N. What older adults can teach us about designing better ballots. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications 15, 4 (2007), 6–11.

[7] Lazar, J. Segregated ballots for voters with disabilities? An analysis of policies and use of the ExpressVote ballot marking device. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 18, 4 (2019), 309–322.

[8] Gupta, V. et al. Securing election infrastructure with hand-marked paper ballots. Journal of Science Policy & Governance 17, 01 (2020).

[9] Schur, L. et al. Fact sheet: Disability and voter turnout in the 2022 elections. Supplemental analysis of Census voter turnout data. Rutgers University. 2023. https://smlr.rutgers.edu/Fact_Sheet_Disability_Voter_Turnout_2022_Elections.pdf

[10] IDEO and LA County, VOX Research Report: Summative Evaluation 2015. Jan. 08, 2025.

[11] Quesenbery, W. and Laskowski, S. J. Handbook for VVSG 2.0 usability and accessibility test strategies. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2023; https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.VTS.400-5

[12] The Associated Press. 2024 Presidential Election Results. AP Elections 2024; https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/?office=P

[13] Riccardi, N., Big voter turnout this year benefited Republicans, contradicting conventional political wisdom. AP News. Nov. 17, 2024.

  Authors

Malinda Fry is a graduate student at the University of Rhode Island earning her Master of Science in systems engineering. She previously received her Bachelor of Science in industrial and systems engineering with minors in mathematics and sustainable agriculture and food systems.

Gretchen A. Macht, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical, Industrial & Systems Engineering at The University of Rhode Island, and Executive Director of the Engineering for Democracy Institute. Her research interests are in computational community ergonomics and statistical methods to understand patterns and performance in public service and government. She is a 2023 HFES Science Policy Fellow and a recipient of the 2024 URI Advanced Career Faculty Research and Scholarship Excellence Award.

  Footnotes

a. https://verifiedvoting.org/equipmentdb

b. http://tinyurl.com/HFESVotingPolicy

c. https://linktr.ee/engr4democracyinstitute

  Tables

Table 1. Accessible voting equipment impact on the total population over the age of 18.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2025 ACM, Inc.