Download pdf - Voting Inclusion

8/20/2019 Voting Inclusion

1/25

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

JANET

E.

LORD,

MICHAEL

ASHLEY

STEIN

AND JA ´ NOS FIALA-BUTORA*

Abstract

Historically and contemporaneously, persons with disabilities have been excluded

from exercising their human rights, including the right to political participation. The

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities responds to this circum

stance and provides a holistic solution. Article 29 addresses the design and imple

mentation of an electoral process that is non-discriminatory, while also requiring

states

to

provide

voters

with

disability-related

accommodations

and

other

facilitative

measures to enable their equal right to vote. Yet to date, what little attention has

been paid to the voting rights of disabled persons has focused on the validity and

scope of exclusions, and neither courts nor legislators have turned to the positive

side of the ledger, namely, how to enable individuals with disabilities to exercise their

franchise. Emerging practices around the globe nonetheless bear out that persons

with disabilities can be successfully incorporated in all phases of an electoral process.

Further, they can perform a variety of roles beyond exercising the franchise—as

voter educators, election commissioners, observers, monitors and committee

members, and as candidates. The article reflects evolving state policies and practices

by

disabled

people’s

organizations,

and

draws

on

our

experience

working

in

this

field

to provide guidance for disability inclusion throughout the ongoing process of pre

electoral, electoral and post-electoral phases that comprise the electoral cycle.

Keywords:ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(CRPD);disabilitydiscrimination;personswithdisabilities;politicalparticipation

Facilitating an equal right to vote for persons with disabilities

Historically and contemporaneously, persons with disabilities have been

excludedfromexercisingtheirhumanrights, includingtherighttopoliticalparticipation.TheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(CRPD)1 responds to this circumstance and provides a holistic solution.

* Michael Ashley Stein ([email protected]) is Executive Director and Ja ´nos Fiala-

Butora( [email protected])isDirector,CentralEuropeProgram,atHarvardLaw

School Project on Disability. Janet E. Lord ([email protected]) is Senior Research

AssociateatHarvardLawSchoolProjectonDisabilityandSeniorVicePresidentforHuman

RightsattheBurtonBlattInstitute,SyracuseUniversity.Collectivelytheyhaveimplemented

disabilityrightslawandpolicyprogrammesinsome40countries,includingsome15election

accessprogrammesimplementedbyLordindevelopingcountries,andSteinandLordparticipatedinthenegotiationsleadinguptotheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswith

Disabilities.

ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities,adopted13December2006(entered

intoforce3May2008).

Journal of Human Rights Practice Vol. 6 | Number 1 | March 2014 | pp. 115–139 DOI:10.1093/ jhuman/hut034 #

The Author (2014). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

D o wnl o

a d e d f r om h t t p : / / j h r p . oxf or d j o ur n a

l s . or g / a t H a r v a r d Uni v e r s i t y onA

pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4

1

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/


2/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

116

Article29oftheConventionaddressesthedesignandimplementationofanelectoral process that is non-discriminatory, while also requiring states toprovidevoterswithdisability-relatedaccommodationsandotherfacilitativemeasurestoenabletheirequalrightto vote.2 Yettodate,whatlittleattentionhasbeenpaidtothevotingrightsofdisabledpersonshasfocusedonthevalidityandscopeofexclusions(EuropeanUnion (EU)Agency forFundamentalRights2010)andneithercourtsnorlegislatorshaveturnedtothepositivesideofthe ledger,namely,howtoenable individualswithdisabilitiestoexercisetheirfranchise.3 TheUNCommitteeontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities,(CRPD Committee), the body that monitors implementation of the CRPD,however,indicatedinconnectionwithCommunicationNo.4/2011,thatimplementationofthehumanrighttopoliticalparticipationrequirestheprovisionofreasonableaccommodationandadequateassistanceandtherepealoflawsthatexcludepersonswithdisabilitiesfromvotingonthebasisofaperceivedoractualmentaldisability,andthatsuchexclusionsconstitutedisabilitydiscrimination(UNCRPDCommittee2013:paras9.4–9.6).

Emergingpracticesaroundtheglobenonethelessbearoutthatpersonswithdisabilities can be successfully incorporated in all phases of an electoralprocess(Lordetal.2012:Chapter3).Further,theycanperformavarietyofrolesbeyondexercisingthefranchise—asvotereducators,electioncommissioners, observers, monitors and committee members, and as candidates(Creative Associates International, Inc. 2010: 7). The sections that followreflectevolvingstatepoliciesandpracticesbydisabledpeople’sorganizations(DPOs),anddrawonourexperienceworkinginthisfieldtoprovideguidancefordisabilityinclusionthroughouttheongoingprocessofpre-electoral,electoralandpost-electoralphasesthatcomprisetheelectoralcycle.4

Barriers to political participation

Oneofthemostwell-articulatedrulesofinternationalhumanrightslaw,therighttoparticipateinpoliticsandpubliclife,isalsooneofthemorefrequently

deniedrightsforindividualswithdisabilities(Fiala-Butora,Stein,andLordforthcoming2014).Disability-relatedexclusionsfrompoliticalparticipationtakemanyforms,impactindividualswithalltypesofdisability,andinvariablyleadtoorentrenchotherhumanrightsabridgements(Lordetal.2012).

2 Article5’sgeneralrequirementofreasonableaccommodationtoenablethefullenjoymentof

humanrights,andarticle12’smandatetofacilitatelegalcapacityarealsoespeciallypertinent.

Forrecentscholarshipontherighttovote,see Fiala-Butora,Stein,andLord(forthcoming

2014).

3 See e.g.Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, Application No.38832/06 (European CourtofHuman

Rights,20May2010),para.31 (prohibitingblanketprohibitions fromvotingofpersonswith intellectual andpsychosocialdisabilities underguardianship, yetremainingsilent on

howstatesoughttosupportthoseindividualsinvoting).

4 Ourselectionofcountryexamplesisderivedlargelyfromourrespectiveexperiencesandthus

accountsforemphasisonsomeregionsoftheworldandnotothers.

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4

http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/


3/25

117

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

Stereotypes aboutdisability often lead to discrimination against personswithdisabilitiesindecision-makingprocessesgenerallyandinthespecificprocessesofvoting,runningforoffice,orparticipatinginpublicoutreachinitiatives by political parties. Disability-based animus leads to legislativestereotypingand rulesthat restrict orevenprohibit altogether the right tovote, particularly for persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities(LordandStein2013).Discriminatorylawsrootedinprejudicemayrestrictorevenprohibitaltogethertherighttovote,particularlyforpersonswithpsychosocialorintellectualdisabilities,ostensiblyundertheguiseofprotectingthesystemfromfraudoronthebasisthatdisabledvotersarenot‘rational’andtherefore cannotexercise thefranchisecompetently.Beyondlegislationdenyingindividualswithdisabilitiestherighttovote,asinautomaticdisenfranchisementinconnectionwiththeimpositionofguardianship,stereotypesmayalso serve toexcludepersonswithdisabilities frombeing included inpublicoutreachbypoliticalpartiesorfromconsiderationascandidatesforpublicoffice.Finally,legalprovisionsthatprecludepersonswithdisabilitiesfromvotingtypicallyfailtoprovideanyprocessforcourtchallengeorjudicialreviewandareoftenvague,arbitraryandlackinginlegitimateaimorpurpose(Fiala-Burtoraetal.forthcoming2014).

Therighttopoliticalparticipationmaybedeniedtopersonswithdisabilitiesforavarietyofreasons.Lackofaccessibletransportforpersonswithdisabilities will impact access to public meetings, voter education activities,registrationandvoting.Poorlytrainedelectionofficialsmayalsoservetodiscouragevoterswithdisabilitiesfromparticipation.Lackofaccesstoinformation,suchasthetimingofpublicmeetingsorvoterregistrationrequirements,can also be a barrier to participation. Communicationbarriers frequentlyexcludepersonswhoaredeaforhardofhearingfromaccessibleinformationonvotingprocedures,aswellasotherimportantprocessessuchasmedicaldecisionmaking.Forindividualswithvisualimpairments,theabsenceofalternativevotingdevicesoraccessiblevotingmethodsposes significant barriers.Forindividualswithdisabilitieswhocannotleavetheirhomesorwhoresideinhospitalsorinstitutions,mobilevotingmechanismsorvotingbymailmaynotbeonoffer.

Civicandvotereducationinitiativesalongwithdomesticvoterobservationprogrammes frequently engage civil society organizations as implementer.DPOsshouldthereforebeincludedinsucheffortsinordertoensureeffectiveoutreachtovoterswithdisabilitiesandtostrengthennetworkingamongcivilsocietyingeneral.Toooften,disabilityorganizationsarenotinvolvedinsuchdomestic efforts. Relatedly, in the context of international development,donororganizationsorserviceprovidersmaywronglyassumethatpersonswithdisabilities areunable totakepartor uninterested indoingso. Thus,DPOsareoftenexcludedfromparticipatinginprojectssupportingelectoralaccess,votereducationandelectionmonitoring.

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



4/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

118

Evenwhereeffortsaremadetoeffectuateaccess,theytoooftenfallshortorintroduceotherinsurmountablebarriers.Anexemplarofthistendencyistheprovisionofawheelchair-accessiblevotingboothatonepollingcentreduringthe United States Presidential elections of 2000, offering up to voters aninvalidsampleballotintendedfordemonstrationpurposesonly,withGeorgeWashington and John Adams as the candidates (Democratic InvestigativeStaff2001:53).Pollingstationsinroomstoosmalltoaccommodatepersonsusingwheelchairsandvotingboxesplacedonhightablesarealsocommonbarrierstophysicalaccess.

Theseandnumerousotherbarriersservetoreinforcetheexclusionandisolationofpersonswithdisabilitiesinpoliticalandpubliclife,and,moregenerally,theirparticipationindecisionmakinginallareaswheretheirinterestsareaffected,whetherinthepublicorprivaterealm.

The UN Disability Convention as a benchmark

WhiletheCRPDistheprimarybenchmarkforassessingthepoliticalrightsofpersonswithdisabilities,therighttoparticipateinpoliticalpubliclifeisfirmlyinstantiated in the foundational instruments comprising the human rightslegal framework. Thus, article 21of the Universal Declaration ofHumanRights (UDHR)5 recognizes the right and article 25 of the InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)6 guaranteestoallcitizens‘the

rightandtheopportunity. . . withoutunreasonablerestrictions. . . tovoteandtobeelectedat genuineperiodicelectionswhichshallbebyuniversalandequalsuffrageandshallbeheldbysecretballot,guaranteeingthefreeexpression of the will of the electors’. These provisions are shored up inthematically-orientedtreaties,suchastheConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationagainstWomen7 (article7)andtheConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination8 (article5),aswellasregionalhumanrightsinstruments.

Theforegoingstandardsaregivenfullerexpressionanddisability-specific

contentintheCRPD.Astheonlylegallybindinginternationalhumanrightstreatyondisabilityrights,theCRPDexplicitlyprohibitsdiscriminationonthebasisofdisabilityandalsocontainsmeasuresthatensurepersonswithdisabilitiesareabletoachievefullenjoymentoftheirhumanrightsinpoliticalandotherspheres(LordandStein2008).Article29oftheCRPDrequiresstatesparties to ‘ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully

5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by UN General Assembly resolution

217A(III),10December1948.

6 InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,16December1966(enteredintoforce

23March1976).7 ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationagainstWomen,18December

1979(enteredintoforce3September1981).

8 InternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,7March

1966(enteredintoforce4January1969).

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



5/25

119

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

participateinpoliticalandpubliclifeonanequalbasiswithothers’,includingtherighttovote.Interpretedonitsown,andtogetherwithprovisionsofcrosscuttingapplicabilityinarticle3(generalprinciples),article4(generalobligations),andarticle5(equalityandnon-discrimination),theCRPDcategorically prohibits all exclusionary practices connected to political participationbasedondisabilitystatus.

Thegeneralprinciplessetoutinarticle3,suchasnon-discrimination,inclusion,participationandautonomy,serveasanadditionalcheckagainstlimitations andexclusions grounded indisabilityanimus.Moreover, article4(3)expressesthegeneralobligationthatstatesmustconsultpersonswithdisabilitieswhendevelopingandimplementinglegislationandpoliciestogiveeffecttotheCRPDandinotherdecision-makingprocessesofconcern.

Generalaswellasindividualassessmentsofcapacityrelatedtotheexerciseofpoliticalrightsareprohibited.Acrosstheworldmanystatutesintroduceclassificationsthat identifysubcategoriesof individualswith disabilitiesforrestrictions impinging on fundamental rights (EUAgency forFundamentalRights2010).TheCRPDCommitteeemphasizedthispointintheconcludingobservationsitissuedontwooftheveryfirstreportssubmittedtoit,thoseofTunisiaandSpain(UNCRPDCommittee2011a,2011b).Inamorerecentreview,theCommitteeconsideredindetailthepermissibilityofHungarianlegislationpermittingthedisenfranchisementofindividualswithdisabilitiesonthebasisofperceivedincapacitytovoterootedintheirdisabilitystatus.InitsconsiderationofthemeritsofCommunication4/2011,theCommitteefoundthat

anexclusionoftherighttovoteonthebasisofaperceivedoractualpsychosocialorintellectualdisability,includingarestrictionpursuanttoanindividualizedassessment,constitutesdiscriminationonthebasisofdisability,within themeaningofarticle2. (UNCRPDCommittee2013:para.9.4)

TheCommitteefurtherfoundthatthediscriminatorylegislationwasneitherlegitimatenorproportionalintermsofsafeguardingtheintegrityofHungary’spoliticalsystem.Rather,Hungarywasobligedtoadaptitsvotingproceduresinordertofacilitatetherighttovoteandtoensurethat,throughtheprovisionofappropriateassistance,personswithintellectualdisabilitieswereabletocastacompetentvote.

The obligationnot todiscriminateonthe basisofdisability, set forth inarticle 5 of the CRPD, accordingly asserts a duty to provide reasonableaccommodationintherealizationofrights,suchasvotingaccommodations(article29).TheCRPD,inaddition,requiresthatstatestakeproactivemeasures beyond the provision of reasonable accommodation to ensure thatvoterswithdisabilitiescanexercisetheirrightsinpractice.Article9,therefore,provides for accessibility measures to be undertaken in order to facilitate

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



6/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

120

physical,communication,andinformationaccess,allofwhicharehighlypertinent to enabling political participation. In the context of article 29, forexample,accessibleformatswouldberequiredtofacilitateinclusiveballotingbyblindorvisuallyimpairedvoters,andphysicalbarrierswouldneedtoberemovednot onlyon the way intoapolling centre,but equally inside thepollingstationitself.Forinstance,pollingboothsarealltoooftenentirelyinaccessibleforvoterswhousewheelchairsduetoinabilitytosurmountbooththresholdsoreffectuate turning insideabooth.Further,article12requiresstatestoundertakemeasurestofacilitatethelegalcapacityofpersonswithdisabilities,acoreaspectofwhichisexercisingthelegalrighttovote,forinstancethrougheasy-to-readvoterinformation.

Legal framework

TheCRPDisnowoneofthemostwidelyratifiedhumanrightstreatiesand,assuch,shouldserveasthebenchmarkagainstwhichtoreviewlegalframeworksinelectionswork.EvenabsentratificationoftheCRPD,itisreflectiveof existing standards set forth in the InternationalCovenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, among others, and should therefore be regarded as anauthoritative interpretation of the more generalized standards on politicalparticipation.Constitutionalandlegalframeworksmaynoteffectivelyaccommodatebroadcivicparticipation,particularlyformarginalizedpopulations,

and may also be inadequate in terms of fostering genuine political competitionandtheprovisionoftransparent,efficientandelectorate-responsiveelection administration. The legal framework relevant for assessing nondiscriminationandequalityforvoterswithdisabilitiesencompassesthelegalstandards,methods,andproceduresforelectionadministration,togetherwithstandardsforprotectinghumanrights(politicalandotherwise)embeddedinconstitutionsand/oranti-discriminationlegislation,andhumanrightsacts,alongwithenablinglegislationandregulations(USAgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID)2000:AppendixC).Thus,beyondelectorallaws,afair

anddemocraticprocessforpoliticalparticipationmustalsoincluderelatedandinterconnectedhumanrightsprotectionssuchasnon-discriminationandequality,freedomofspeechandassembly,freedomofassociation,freedomofthepress,andrecognitionoflegalcapacity,amongothers.

Variousapproachestodevisingelectorallawsmayincludestand-alonelegislationcoveringpresidential,parliamentaryandmunicipalelections,orcombinedlegislation.Separatestatutesmayaddressahostofotherissuessuchasvoterregistration,campaignfinancing,votingeligibility,electoralcomplaintsandthelike.Stillotherlegislationmaybepertinenttoelections,suchasthe

civilcode(particularlyinsofarasthelegalcapacityofvotersisaddressed),administrativelaw,massmedialaw,andaccessibilitycodesatthenationalormunicipal levels. Some countries have moved in the direction ofuniversal

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



7/25

121

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

electoralcodesasacomprehensivepieceoflegislationcoveringallaspectsofanelectoralprocess(USAID2000:23).9

Legalframeworksareanessentialelementofensuringtheparticipationofpersonswithdisabilitiesinvotinganddecision-makingprocessesmoregenerally. Evenwhere personswithdisabilitiesappear tohave the right tovoteundertheconstitutionorpursuanttoelectorallaw,theymaynonethelessbeexcludedonaccountofregistrationrequirementssuchaspropertyownership,birthregistration,employment,oreducation(SteinandLord2011:31).Thenuancesofdisabilityrightswhich,likegender,arecross-cuttingandrequireadeep and comprehensive analysis of a legal framework, are unfortunatelybeyondthekenofmostlegalexpertsundertakingelectoralassessments.

Entry points for addressing shortcomings in electoral access for personswithdisabilities—notablyimpermissibleexclusions,gaps,andambiguouspro-visions—includeamendments tothe legal framework inordertoexpandormoreadequatelyprotectpoliticalrights(Waterstone2004: 127; InternationalFoundationforElectoralSystems(IFES)2011b:7).Administrativeregulationscanlikewiseaddressbarrierswhereimplementingmeasuresareunderdeveloped(CenterforTransitionalandPost-ConflictGovernance2005: 11). Finally, participatinginthedevelopmentofcodesofconductforelectionobserversandpartyagents isan important entrypoint for disabilityadvocates toprovideinputsthatcanhelpprotecttherightsofvoterswithdisabilitiesand,inaddition,improvetheirvotingexperience(LordandStein2012:27).Someillustrationsprovideamodelforcomprehensivereviewandamendmentoroverhaulofthelegalframeworkforelections.Forexample,theUnitedStates-basedNationalDemocraticInstituteworkedinMacedoniatocompleteadetailedauditoftheexistingelectionlaw,providingananalyticalcommentaryandfacilitatingtelevisedhearingstoengagecivilsocietyorganizationsandrulingandoppositionpartiestoconsiderchangetotheexistinglaw.Theresultingnewlawincorporatedsome80percentoftheproposedchanges(USAID2000: 25).

Duringdemocratictransitionelectoralsystemsareoftendevelopedcontemporaneously with other constitutional and law reform processes, therebyofferingopportunitiestosecuretherightsofpersonswithdisabilitiesinanintegratedwayacrossthelegalframework.Insomeinstances,humanrightstreatyratificationoffers the same opportunity for DPO engagement in thedevelopment,analysis,andimplementationofconstitutionalprovisionsandlegislationonthedelineationofrolesandresponsibilitiesofgovernmentandcivil society related to political participation. In some successful advocacyinitiatives,DPOshavedrawnoncomparativeandglobalbestpracticesandhavesuccessfullypressedfordisability-inclusiveinstruments thatarekey tothedevelopmentofasoundlegalframeworktoprotecttherightsofpersons

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4

Countries include Bosnia, Bulgaria, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ghana, Honduras,

Indonesia,Nigeria,Macedonia,Mexico,Mongolia, Philippines,Poland,Romania,Russia,

Slovakia,SouthAfrica,Ukraine,andWestBank /Gaza.

9



8/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

122

withdisabilities.AspartofongoingelectoralassistanceinEgyptfollowingthe2011revolution,forinstance,thedisabilitycommunityhasbeenproposingchangestoseveralrelevantpiecesoflegislationgoverningelections.Inaddition,theyarepursuingconstitutionallawreflectiveofdisabilityrightsandadvocatingfortheadoptionofanationaldisabilitylaw.10 Pursuinganyoneofthesereformeffortsinisolationwouldbecounterproductiveandwouldmissopportunitiesforadvancingholisticdisabilityrightsprotection.

Inclusion

in

pre-election

technical

assessments

Gauginganelectoralenvironmentforthepurposeofincludingpersonswithdisabilities,aswellasothermarginalizedgroups,shouldhappenasamatterofcoursewithinthegeneralframeworkofapre-electiontechnicalassessment.

These exercises provide an opportunity to identify needs and formulaterecommendationsforelectoraladministrationreformsandadjustmentsthatare inclusive,accessible, coordinated, andconsistentwithinternationaldisabilityrightsstandards(USAID2000:7).

Pre-electiontechnicalassessmentscanprovideinformationandanalysisoftheoverall electoral environment together with political, economic, social,andsecurityissuesthatmayhaveanimpactonpoliticalcampaignsandelection procedures, set out recommendations on programming priorities andfundingneeds,andidentifyshortandlongtermactionstrategiesthatshould

betaken(Heilman1999;Sheinbaum,Fremaux,andSeiler1995).Importantly,theseevaluationsprovidearoadmapforgovernments,electionmanagementbodies,politicalparties,andcivilsocietyorganizationstoundertakenecessaryreformsandimplementgoodpracticesthatfosterinclusionandenhancethelegitimacy of electoral processes (IFES 2012b; IFES and the Association forParticipatory Democracy (ADEPT) 2004; Organization for Security andCo-operationinEurope(OSCE)2001).Toooften,however,assessmentsoftheaccessibilityofanelectoralsystemtopersonswithdisabilitiesarenotincludedwithingeneralassessmentframeworks,butexistasaone-offoradhoceffort,if

atall.11

Nevertheless, standardelectionassessmentstouchuponavarietyof

10 Thus,forexample,Law73of1956,ExercisingofPoliticalRights,containsanexclusion

provisionforvoterswithmentaldisabilitiesand,inarticle3,providesthat‘[e]xercisingpolit

icalrightsshallbesuspendedfor. . .

(2)[t]hosewhoarebeingtreatedformentalillnessesand

fortheperiodoftheirtreatment’.http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%

20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdf .

11 Specifically,democracyassistanceeffortspaylittletonoattentiontoenfranchisingpersons

withdisabilities, notwithstanding the fact thatmany targeted countries have substantial

populationsofdisabledpersonsonaccountofpoverty,armedconflict,andotherfactors.

Seee.g.USAID2000:10(referencingtheimportanceofextendingvotingrightstohistorical

lyexcludedgroups).TheInternationalFoundationforElectoralSystems(IFES)hasastrongtrackrecordofundertakingelectionaccessassessmentstotracktheaccessibilityofanelect

oral system.Theseare, however, typicallystand-alone assessmentsdesigned tofill agap

whereageneralpre-electiontechnicalassessmentignoredaltogetherorbarelygrazeddisabil

ityaccess.Formoreonthedisability-specificassessments,see IFES(undated).

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4

http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdfhttp://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/EG/Law%20No.%2073%20of%201956%20-%20english.pdf


9/25

123

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

issues with salience for accessibility and advancing citizen participation bypersonswithdisabilities(InternationalIDEA2000:AppendixA).

Themandate,relativeindependence,technicalreadiness,andinstitutionalcapacity of an election management body (EMB), along with subordinateelection commissions and polling boards, is important insofar as electionmanagementbodiescansubstantiallyadvanceorseriouslyunderminedisabilityinclusionandelectionaccess.Likewise,othergovernmentagenciestaskedwithsupportingvoterregistrationandelectionadministrationprocessesandadjudicatingelection-relateddisputesareimplicatedinstrengtheningorinhibitinginclusionforvoterswithdisabilities.Thetimetableforelections,majordeadlineswithinthecampaign,andelectionpreparationispertinenttoensuringthateffortstodesignandintroduceinclusivepracticesarefullyimplemented.

Proceduresandsystemstargetingfraudidentificationandpreventionareanessentialfeatureofassessments,butalltoooftenfraudisusedastheprimarybasisuponwhichtoexcludevariouscategoriesofvotersfromthefranchise,particularlypersonswith intellectualandmental disabilities (Sabatino andSpurgeon 2007: 858; Karlan 2007: 925; Kohn 2007: 1076). Accordingly,technical assessments must scrutinize closely and view pessimistically thisbasis for exclusion insofar as no studies disclose a link between allowingpersonswithdisabilitiestovote,withorwithoutfacilitatedassistance,andahigherrateofelectoralfraud,andthepurportedprotectionoftheelectoralsystemthoughthedisenfranchisementofvoterswithdisabilitiesisnotempiricallydemonstrated(Fiala-Butoraetal.forthcoming2014).12

Otherissuestobecoveredinassessmentsincludeevaluatingtheaccuracyandsufficiencyof thevoter identification systemand thevoter registrationprocess/votersregistry.Ofparticularconsequenceforpersonswithdisabilitiesisthefactthatinmanycaseschildrenwithdisabilitiesarenotregisteredatbirth,presentingadditionalbarrierstoexercisingthefranchise( SteinandLord2011:31).Alsoofconsequenceistheextenttowhichassessmentscovertheadequacyofelectionbudgeting,includingtheleveloffundingdevotedtotargetedoutreachand inclusion efforts to enhance opportunities for equalaccessandparticipationbypersonswithdisabilities.

Finally, technical assessments examine opportunities for the mass mediaand domestic monitoring groups to provide information to voters and tooverseetheelectoralprocessinadditiontoassessingmediaanddomesticmonitoringcompetency.Attentionshouldbegiven to thediversityofdomesticmonitoringgroupsandtheextenttowhichstrategiesofmediaengagementcanenhancetheparticipationofmarginalizedgroups.

12 Indeed,itshouldbenotedthatelectoralfraudextendsbeyondballotingandinfactcoversaspects of the process that have littleor no link to purported fraud linked to allowing

personswithdisabilitiestovote.Theprincipalvehiclesofvotingfraudareinthedesignof

fraudulentvotingregistrationschemes,irregularitiesinvotecountingandtabulationand/or

inaccuraciesinthereportingorresults.See Fiala-Butoraetal.(forthcoming2014).

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



10/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

124

Site

selection

for

accessibility

Registrationandpollingcentresiteselectionislikelytohaveamajorimpactonaccessibilitytovoterregistrationandballoting,particularlyinsofarasalter

natives,suchasoff-sitevoting,votingbymail,kerbsidevotingandmobilevotingmechanisms,arebynomeansuniversallyavailable(Waterstone2010:1100).Evenwhereoff-sitevotingisavailable,thisisnotnecessarilyanadequatesolutionforpersonswithdisabilitiestoaccessthefranchiseasitmaycreatedifferentialaccessandimpactthevotingexperience,forinstancewhereadigitaldividepreventsdisabledvotersfromutilizingtheinternet (Waddell1999).

A number of factors should be taken into account in order to achievebarrier-freeaccesstoregistrationandpollingcentres.ConsultationwithDPOs

ispartandparcelofthisprocessandcanhelpidentifythespecificneedsofpeoplewithdisabilities,suchaspeoplewhousewheelchairsorothermobilitydevices.Siteselection,suchastheidentificationofpollingcentreswithlevelground floor entry, will not only facilitate access for voters with mobilityimpairments,butwill likewisebenefitpregnant women,olderpersonsandindividualswithtemporaryorpermanenthealthconditionsthatlimitmobility. In Ghana, most polling stations are outdoors—a decision taken toenhance transparency that nonetheless has positive implications foraccess(Gyimah-BoadiandTakah2012:7).InCanada,incaseswherelevelaccessat

apollingcentreisnotavailable,transferpassesareprovidedtoenablevoterswith mobility impairments to utilize an alternative and accessible pollingcentre(ElectionsCanada2004:6).

Increasedattentionisbeingpaidtositeselectionandaccessibilityaudits.ThebestpracticeisforsuchinitiativestobeimplementedjointlybyDPOsinconjunctionwithelectoralofficials.TheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice(DOJ),forexample,aspartofitsProjectAccessInitiative,conductedcompliancereviewsatpollingplacesin82communitiesacrosstheUnitedStatesandisworking toenforcethe accessibility requirementsof the Americanswith

Disabilities Actinthevotingcontext.DOJreacheda settlement agreementwiththecityofFlint,Michigan,tosurveyandmakeaccessibleallitspollingplacesintimefortheNovember2012election;owingtoa2009settlement,another city, Philadelphia, has implemented accessibility improvements atmorethan500pollingplaces.13 SomeUSstateshavealsoinitiatedtheirownaccessibility programmes to address ongoing barrier removal (Waterstone2010:1114).BeyondtheUnitedStates,andpromptedbytheratificationof

13 DOJhas,forexample,beeninitiatingcompliancereviewswith188localitiesin50states,

resultingin203settlementagreementsonmatterssuchas‘physicalmodificationstopollingplacesand/ortheprovisionofcurb-sideorabsenteeballoting’(ProjectCivicAccessFact

Sheet.ADA.gov,http://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htm).DOJalsoprovidesachecklistforelect

oralofficialsinordertocomplywithADAregulations(ADAChecklistforPollingPlaces,

2004.ADA.gov,http://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdf ).

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4

http:///reader/full/places.13http:///reader/full/places.13http://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http:///reader/full/places.13http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdfhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htmhttp://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htm


11/25

125

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

the CRPD,effortsareunder way inJordan toenhance the accessibilityofpollingcentresthroughtheapplicationofthemunicipalityofAmman’saccessibilityguidelinesandtheproductionofapollingaccessibilitytoolkit(IFES2013b:13;IFES2013a;BBCNews2013).

DPOscanoftenplayanimportantroleinraisingawarenessofaccessibilityconcerns.Witness,forexample,theeffortsofaDPOcoalitioninMacedoniathatreceivedinternationalassistanceandthatundertookaccessibilityaudits,completewithtaggingsiteswithstickersindicatingaccessibility(orotherwise)ofpollingcentres(Global InitiativetoEnfranchisePeoplewithDisabilities,undated a). In Armenia, DPOs have worked through successive electoralcycles to document physical barriers to polling centres and to undertakebarrierremovalatcertainsites(GlobalInitiativetoEnfranchisePeoplewith Disabilities 2004). In other instances, DPOs are utilizing technology toenhanceaccessibilityauditing.Forexample,inLebanon,disabilityadvocatesusedgeographicalinformationsystem(GIS)mappingtechnologytoidentifyaccessiblepollingcentresandincorporatefindingsintoapublishedguidefortheuseofvoterswithdisabilitiesandtheirfamiliestofacilitatevotingaccess(IFES,undated).

Voter eligibility and inclusive registration

Effective access to political processes for individuals with disabilities veryoftenhingesonvotereligibilityand/orvoter registration. Atfirst instance,personswithdisabilitiesmayfindthattheyareineligibletovotebasedondiscriminatoryrestrictionsindomesticlaw.Forinstance,theplacementofvotingageindividualsunderguardianshipmayautomaticallyremovevotingrights.Theserightsmayalsoberemovedinaccordancewithclassificationsystemsthatimposeindividualizedassessmentsofvotercompetence.

Additionalbarriersmaypreventvoterswithdisabilities frombeing registeredtovote.Theymayneverhavehadthedocumentationrequiredforvoterregistrationduetopoverty,illiteracy,orsocialstigmaresultingeitherintheirnotbeingregisteredatbirthorbeingdenieddocumentationlateroninlife(SteinandLord2011).Voterregistrationisoneofthemainresponsibilitiesofelectionmanagementbodiesandisoffundamentalimportancefortheinclusionofmarginalizedgroupsgenerally.Theelectorallawsofmanycountriesaroundtheworldrequirevoterregistrationpriortoandasapreconditionofvotinginanelection(seegenerallyPintorandGratschew2002;Clottey2012;IFES2011c).Registration isa markerofthe integrityand legitimacyofanelectoralprocess,andaprimarybenchmarkforsuccessfulregistrationistheregistrationofmarginalizedgroups(USAID2000:26).

Inaddition, registration offers auniqueopportunity, when designedandimplementedappropriately,tocapturevitalinformationthatcanenhancetheaccessibilityofanelectoralprocessforpersonswithdisabilities.Notably,informationcapturedandtrackedduringvoterregistrationcanhelptoidentifyaccessibilityneedsandhighlightaccessibilitybarrierstoberemovedpriorto

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



12/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

126

theelectoraleventinquestion.Increasingly,DPOsareworkingcloselywithelectionmanagementbodiesandwithcivilsocietyvotereducationinitiativestoensurethatthevoiceandimageofpersonswithdisabilitiesisreflectedinvoter registration materials (Francisco 2012; IFES 2012a: 1). In someinstances,targetedoutreacheffortsundertakenduringregistrationcanensurethatpersonswithdisabilities,whooftenarenotregisteredtovote,doindeedregister.OneclearexampleistheHelpAmericaVoteActwhichincludesspecific provisions to ensure equal access to electoral participation, includingvoterregistration.14 Moreover,theNationalVoterRegistrationActrequiresthatvoterregistrationopportunitiesbemadeavailableat,amongotherplaces,stateofficesprovidingpublicassistanceordisabilityservices.Thisprovisionwasdesignedtoincreasetheregistrationofpoorpersonsandpersonswithdisabilitieswhodonothavedriver’slicencesandthuswillnotlikelyvisitmotorvehicle registration officeswhere voterregistration ismadeavailable (Perez2012).

Accessible balloting and ballot design

Ballotingproceduresalongwithballotdesign,procurementanduseareimportantdimensionsofaccessibilityforpersonswithdisabilities.Voterswhoare blind or who have low vision are particularly at riskof compromisedaccesstoprintedballotsandotherelectoralmaterialessentialtoparticipateef

fectivelyinelectoralprocesses(Fleming2009).Withspecificregardtoballotcasting,suchpersonsveryoftenhavetheirrighttovoteindependentlyandinsecretcompromised.Insomecountries,electronicvotingmachinesareenhancing access for persons with visual impairments (Mindes 2002; GhanaAssociationoftheBlind2002).InWesternAustralia,forexample,computersoftwarecalled‘VoteAssist’allowselectorswithvisualimpairmentstolistentoanaudiorecording,andbyfollowingtheinstructionsandusinganumerickeypad,theycancasttheirvote,obtainaprintedballotpaper,andplacetheballotpaperintotheballotbox,therebypreservingbothindependenceand

secrecy(Palmer2013).Whensuchtechnologyisnotavailable,othersolutionshavebeeneffectively

introducedatlowcost.Tactileballotguides,forexample,havebeeneffectivelyusedinSierraLeone,Ghana,Peruandelsewheretohelpsecuretherighttovoteinsecretandindependently(GlobalInitiativetoEnfranchisePeoplewith Disabilities, undatedb).Wheredesigned properly, theguides enableballotpaperstobeinsertedintotheguideinonedirectiononly,allowingablindvotertoplacetheballotpaperintheguidewithoutassistance,therebyensuringindependenceandsecrecyintheballotcastingprocess.InLiberiain2004,

key representatives from the disability community worked collaborativelywiththeNationalElectionCommissionandinternationalassistancepartners

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4

14 Help AmericaVoteActof2002.Pub. L. No.107– 252,United States Statutes at Large

(166):1666.

http:///reader/full/registration.14http:///reader/full/registration.14http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http:///reader/full/registration.14http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/


13/25

127

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

todesignandpilotsuchtactileballotguidesindesignatedelectoraldistricts(Mindes 2002). Materials on the use of the guide were developed, pollworkersweretrainedonitsuse,andoutreachwasundertakentoensurethatblindvoterswereawareofitsavailability.Itshouldbenotedthatdesigningatactile—andnotBraille—guideisagoodexampleofalocally-drivensolution.While well-meaning persons from developed countries often assume thatBrailleisanaccessiblesolutionforblindpersons,inmanycountries,includingLiberia,blindpersonsarenotversedinBraille.

Otheraspectsofballotdesignandusetriggerconcernsaboutaccommodationfordisability.Duringelectionsintheimmediatepost-conflictperiodinSierraLeone,itwasimportanttoconsidertheprocedureformarkingballotsfor those SierraLeoneanswhoexperienced forcedamputationsduring thecivilwar.Anaccommodationthatpreservedboththeintegrityoftheballotingprocessandthedignityofthevoterswastoallowindividualstomarktheirballot by inking their toe, as opposed to their thumb (Morin and Deane2002).

Inclusive voter education and information

Votereducationandinformationcampaigningisdirectedatenhancingvoters’awarenessoftheirvotingrights;knowledgeabouttheregistration,election,

and adjudicationprocesses; understanding ofelectionday issues tobeputbeforetheelectorate, includingtermsofcandidates,parties,andkeyissues;andlevelsofconfidenceintheelectoralsystem.Differencesincommunicationandinformationneedsmustbetakenintoaccountinordertoaccommodatethediversityoftheelectorate.Variablessuchaslanguage,literacy,urbanvs.rural,culturaltraditionsandgenderallmustbe takenintoconsiderationinplanningforeffectiveeducationandoutreach.Likewise,ensuringtheaccessofpersons with disabilities to voter education and information will requirevarious accommodations and modifications, many of which will enhance

accessforavarietyofmarginalizedgroups.Forexample,illustrativeorpictorialinformationmaybeusefulforabroadrangeofpotentialvoters,includingbutnotlimitedtopersonswithintellectualdisabilitiesanddeafindividuals.

In Egypt during the Mubarak regime, DPO activists mobilized to raiseawarenessabouttheimportanceofincludingpersonswithdisabilitiesinvoteroutreachefforts. TheyengagedafamousEgyptianpolitical cartoonistwhodrewaseriesofcartoonsillustratingdisabilityrights themes.15 Oneofthesewasdevelopedintoanelectionaccesspostertosupportinclusioneffortsintheelections happening at the time. The poster depicted a wheelchair user at

thebottomofaflightofstairswithaballotboxonthefloorattheverytopofthestaircase.Thefrustratedvoterhadbeadsofperspirationdrippingfromhisforeheadwhilsttryingtofigureoutasolutiontotheproblem.Suchimages

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4

15 SeeEsmailM.EFFATAbdEl-AzimEgyptCartoonist,http://effat.8m.com.

http:///reader/full/themes.15http:///reader/full/themes.15http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://effat.8m.com/http://effat.8m.com/http://effat.8m.com/http:///reader/full/themes.15http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://effat.8m.com/http://effat.8m.com/http://effat.8m.com/http://effat.8m.com/http://effat.8m.com/


14/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

128

deliverapowerfulmessageofexclusion,andcanhelpenhancethevisibilityofpersonswithdisabilitieswithintheframeworkofanelectionprocess.

InQuebec,informationalmaterialsforelectorswereadaptedtoalternativemediasuchasBraille,audiocassetteandlargeprint,aswellasvideocassettesinbothQuebecSignLanguageandAmericanSignLanguage(Leclerc2010).Inaddition,alltelevisedmessagesweresubtitledforpeoplewithhearingorvisual disabilities and a teletypewriter for the deaf (TTY), whichprovidedaccesstoqualifiedelectioninformationofficers,allowedaccesstovoterinformationthroughanadaptedmodeofcommunication(ibid.).Finally,throughout each election period, information on the specific measures taken forelectorswithdisabilitieswasdisseminatedtoallmediainQuebec,includingsome20specializedmedia,andtosome1,500affectedinstitutionsandorganizations(ibid.).

Finally, DPOsaround the worldhave been highly successful inutilizingmassmediatocoverelectionaccessissuesand,significantly,haveworkedtoraiseawarenessaboutthevoiceandimageofpersonswithdisabilitiesinelectoralprocesses,votereducationmaterials,andthelike.Toooften,mediacoverage reinforces perceptions of persons with disabilities as passive, helplessindividualsasopposedtoempoweredcitizens.

Integrated training of election officials

InLiberia,duringthehistoric2004electionsinwhichEllenJohnsonSirleaf,thefirstwomanAfricanheadofstate,waselected,DPOsusedtheelectoralprocess toraise the voice and visibilityofdisabledLiberians. At the time,LiberianDPOswereawareoftheCRPDdraftingprocessandrequested,aspartoftheirelectionwork,additionalinformationaboutinternationalstandardsondisabilitytohelpthemdraftanationaldisabilitylaw(LordandStein2012:27).

ElectionaccessworkwithDPOsaimedtofosterDPOcooperationthroughthe creation of a coalition that worked along all phases of the electoralprocess—voter education, voter registration, polling, electoral observationandmonitoring,andpost-electionassessment.Oneofthemorepoignantillustrationsofsuccessfuladvocacyoccurredduringatrainingofsome50electionofficialsfromtheNationalElectionCommission.Duringtheworkshop,DPOadvocatesemployedrole-playingtoillustratethebarriersthattheyhadexperienced in the previous elections. Using humour, while conveying a seriousmessageofdiscriminationandexclusionbasedonstereotypingandgeneralizedlackofknowledge,agroupofdisabilityadvocatescomprisedofpersonswithvarioustypesofdisabilities simulatedvotecastingatapollingstation.Drawingontheirownindividualexperiences,thegroupdemonstratedthenumerousbarriersthatcanstandinthewayofadisabledvoter’saccessandparticipation,rangingfromphysicalandcommunicationbarriersexperiencedbypersonswithphysicalandsensorydisabilitiestobarriersrootedinignoranceandstigma(Lordetal.2012:Part4).

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



15/25

129

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

Thetechniqueofparticipatoryhumanrightseducationrequiredlittleinthewayofmaterialsorpreparationbutdrewdirectlyupontheknowledgeandlivedexperienceofdisabledadvocatesthemselves.Theseadvocates, thoughnotwellversedintheintricaciesofinternationalstandardsonpoliticalparticipationorevenLiberianelectorallawandregulations,werehighlyknowledgeable about barriers to access and generating strategies to address suchbarriers.Withthesebarriersthusexposed,andwiththeattentionofelectionofficials effectively captured, the group went on to small group exercises,workingalongsideelectionofficialstodesignspecificstrategiesforenhancingaccess. One exercise reviewed existing voter education posters and thencreatedanewdesigntoshowtheimageofdisabledpersons(Lordetal.2012:Part4).Otherexercisesdevelopedideasformakingvoterobservationinclusive of disability access issues, for instance, on voter observation forms.Otherssoughttoaddresstheissueofsecretandindependentvotingforblindvoters(ibid.).

Another approach,adopted inJordan in2010, targetedmembersof theelectionmanagementbodyforaworkshopintroducingadetailedframeworkforaddressinginclusionintheforthcomingJordanianelections.Thisproject,implementedwithin the frameworkof a democracyassistanceprogramme,soughttoexposeelectionofficialstoaccessibilitybarriersandpossiblesolutionsthatcouldbeachievedwithintheJordaniancontext.Theworkshopultimately paved the way for a reform of the assisted voting procedure, theintegrationofanelectionaccessmoduleinthecascadetrainingforelectionofficialsacrossthecountry,andtheinclusionofdisabilityaccesstopicsintwoguidesproducedbytheelectionmanagementbody(IFES2011d).

Election

observation

Electionmonitoringmaybeundertakenbyarangeofdifferentactors,including domestic as well as international monitoring groups, political partyagents, the mass media, oversight and regulatory agencies, and nationalhumanrightsinstitutions(NHRIs)(OSCE2010).Electionobservationservesavarietyoffunctionsinsupportingthedemocraticprocess,amongthemfacilitatingthetransparencyoftheelectoralprocess,strengtheningpublicconfidenceinelectionresults,andprovidingacheckonelectoralfraud(Carothers1997:19–21).Observationfurtherservestoenhancethelegitimacyofdemocraticinstitutions,includingelectedbodiesandofficesaswellastheinstitutions participating in or contributing to the process, such as electionmanagementbodiesandnationalhuman rights institutions (CarterCenter,undated).

Electoralprocessesprovideuniqueopportunitiesforassessingandmonitoringdisability inclusion in voting processes. Moreover, theparticipation ofmarginalizedgroupsinobservationcanbeahighlyeffectivewayofenhancingthevisibilityofgroupsinapoliticalprocess(OSCE2004a,2004b).Inorderto leverage monitoring to advance the political rights of persons with

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



16/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

130

disabilities (and indeed, other marginalized groups) specific measures arerequiredtoensurethatelectionmonitoringmethodologyandpracticeismadefullyaccessibleandinclusive.Electoralprocessmonitoringlikewisemustbecomprehensiveinscopeifitistohelpfullyassessthemultitudeofpossiblebarrierstoinclusionformarginalizedgroups.

Monitoringencompassesmorethanballotingandvotecountingonelectionday;assessingelectionaccessforpersonswithdisabilitiesaccordinglyentailsmorethanmereballotingobservationofdisabledvoters.Aholisticapproachtomonitoringelectionstoassesstheinclusionofmarginalizedgroups,includingpersonswithdisabilities,requiresthatmonitoringactivitiesbedirectedattheentire electoralprocess, including voter registration; media coverageofelectioncampaigns;electioncampaigningduringthedefinedperiod;theaggregationofvotesanddeterminationofresults;electionsecurityissuessuchasviolence and intimidationandelectionsecurity techniques that maytrumpelectionaccesssolutions;and,finallymonitoringeffectiveaccessbyallgroupstoelectoraldisputemechanisms(SimpserandDonno2012).

Policymakersshouldbemadeawareoftheneedtoincludeprovisionsondisabilityaccessinlegislationgoverningcampaignsandelections.Disabilityadvocates clearly have a role to play in the legislative drafting process toensurethattheirinterestsaretakenintoaccount.Suchadvocacycanhelptoensurethatdomesticmonitors,internationalobservers,andjournalistsmeettheirresponsibilitiesinobservingandreportingonelectionsinkeepingwithdisabilityaccess.

Trainingprogrammesandtechnicalelectionbriefingsfordomesticmonitoringgroups,politicalparties, internationalobservermissions, thediplomaticcorpsanddevelopmentcommunity,andjournalistsprovideimportantopportunitiesforelectionaccessissuestobehighlightedandemphasized.EngagingwithDPOsandnationaldisabilitycommissions,wheretheyexist,providesareadysourceofexpertise.InLiberiaduringthehistoric2004elections,DPOsdesignedquestionsforinclusionintheregularelectionmonitoringformsand,in addition, they created their own disability-specific observation forms(Nelsonetal.2008:16).

Designinganinclusiveapproachtomonitoringelectoralprocessesentailsthedevelopmentoftoolstosupportaccessiblemonitoringefforts.Thiscouldinclude,forexample,ensuringtherecruitmentofdisabilityadvocatesinmonitoringeffortsandensuringthatcoalition-buildingstrategiesincludeDPOs,apracticethathasbeenutilizedwithgreateffectinnumerouscountries.Toillustrate,Armenian localDPOsworkedtogetherwiththeyouthcoalitiontoparticipate inelectoral educationandmonitoring (IFES2003).InEgypt,aleadingcoalitionofDPOshelpedtofacilitateelectionobservertrainingand,inaddition,tookpartasobserversonthedomesticobserverteamincooperation with the Egyptian Human Rights Council, Egypt’s national humanrightsinstitution(IFES2011a).

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



17/25

131

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

Toolstypicallydevelopedtoguideelectoralmonitoringprocessesshouldincorporateadisabilitydimension,whether inobserver referenceguidesandchecklists,electoralobserverreportingforms,databases,orthetrainingcurriculaandmaterialsforalldomesticandinternationalobservers.Newtechnologiesalsoprovideopportunitiesforcapturingdisabilityaccessdatainthecontextofelectionmonitoring,whetherintrackinginaccessibilityatindividualpollingstations,orhighlightingaccessiblepollingstations.Likewise,monitoringdeployment plans, public information strategies, andsecurityplansmusttakeaccessintoaccountandeliminatebarrierswhereidentified.

Accessible electoral complaints processes

Judicial review of electoral disputes is standard practice in democracies,although the form it takes varies. Electoral disputes may be adjudicatedthroughtheregularcourthierarchyormaybeexpeditedthroughreviewproceduresundertakenbyhighercourts(Dhal2008).Insomecountries,electoraldisputesandcomplaintsareaddressedbyestablishedadministrativeandjudicialbodiesthatfollowspecialproceduresestablishedunderelectionandadministrativelaws.Elsewhere,electoraldisputesarehandledthrough sharedcompetence between regular courts and permanent or temporary electioncommissions. Insome instances,aspecializedelectoralcourtwithexclusivejurisdictionforelection-relatedcases,atleastatthelevelofappeals,hascompetence to address election disputes. In Mexico, for example, the FederalElectoralTribunaloverseestheentireelectionprocess,resolvesdisputes,andcertifiesthevalidityofelectionresults(MexicanFederalElectoralTribunal,undated).

Whileadearthofdatamakesitdifficulttoassesstheextenttowhichelectoral complaintsmechanisms are accessible tomarginalized groups,access tojustice generally is rife with barriers for persons with disabilities. Beyondhelping to ensure that challenged election results are addressed justly andwithout delay and that criminal violations of election laws are handledquickly, transparently and fairly, there are a variety of other issues thatconnecttochallengingrestrictionsandlimitationsonelectionrights.Theseincludeseekingpolitical office, supportingpolitical partiesandcandidates,registrationandvotingitself(Vickery(ed.)2011).Adjudicationsystemsmustlikewisehandlethesematterscompetentlyandquicklyinaproceduralframeworkthatisfullyaccessibletoall,clear,transparentandinkeepingwithdueprocess standards. This, in turn, facilitates democracy and can usefullyenhance overall public confidence as well as awareness of political rights.Thereareatleasttwodimensionsofelectionaccesstoconsiderinthecontextofelection-relateddisputes.Safeguardingindividualrightsofpoliticalparticipationisclearlyfundamentaltothefairadjudicationofelectioncomplaints.Clarityinelectionlawsandimplementingregulationsisessential.Thelegalframeworkmust identifyandempowerexistingbodies,suchascourtsandelectioncommissions,ornewinstitutionssuchaselectoralcourts,toproperly

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



18/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

132

andquicklyhandlethesecomplaintsanddisputes.Ambiguousorconflictingjurisdictionsamongcourtsandadministrativebodiesareconfusingandunfairtopoliticalparties,candidates,thenewsmediaandthevotingpublic.Thelawmustclearlydefineresponsibilityforreceivingandhandlingdifferenttypesofcomplaintsanddisputes,forinvestigation,forpreliminaryadjudicationandtheappealsprocess,andforthefinalityofdecision-makinginresolvingcomplaintsanddisputes(ibid:28–31).

Anadditionaldimensionconcernstheaccessibilityofelectoralcomplaintsrulesandprocedures,whichclearlyimpacttheenjoymentoffundamentalpoliticalrights.Accessibilityinthecontextofelectiondisputesconcernswhere,when,how, and inwhat formcomplaintsorgrievancesmustbefiled.Theformatandformalrequirementsforelectioncomplaintsshouldbeclearandspecifiedintheelectionlaworinimplementingregulationsthataredevelopedbyelectionmanagementbodies.Unfortunately,informationastosuchdetailsisoftensparseandtypicallydoesnotprovidepotentialcomplainantswithanyrealsenseofthebasesonwhichtheymightcomplain,muchlessaddressissuesof disability access. A case in point is the Western Australian ElectionCommissionthathasanextremelyabbreviatedcomplaintspageonitswebsite(WesternAustralianElectoralCommission2013).Whileanofficialformprovidedforthefilingofelectioncomplaintsmayfacilitateaccess,itmayalsohinderaccesswhereitisdifficulttofindonawebsite,isnotaccessiblebyscreenreadingtechnology,orisconfusingorwrittenincomplexlanguage.

Itisalsoessentialtohaveclarityastowhomaybringacomplaintandonwhat basis. Informational materials providing examples of legal bases onwhichtofileacomplaintshouldincludeexamplesofaccessissues,suchasdenialsofvoterregistrationonthebasisofdisabilityorinabilitytocastavotedue to an inaccessible voting procedure. Finally, decisions of complaintsmechanismsshouldbemadeavailable,alongwiththereasonsforsuchdecisions.Internetaccessshouldfacilitatetransparencybutmustconformtowebaccessibilitystandards.

Civic education can play an important role in improving the complaintprocessandencouragingcitizens,civilsocietyandelectoralparticipantstodoa better job of focusing theircomplaints and stating allegations (NationalDemocraticInstitute2010;Vickery(ed.)2011:203–26).Publicunderstandingofrulesandprocedures,andpublicconfidenceinthefairnessandopenness of adjudicative processes, is fundamental to assuring widespreadacceptanceofthelegitimacyofelectionoutcomes.

Insum,programmingshouldhelptoimproveaccesstotheelectoralcomplaintsprocessthrougheffortsincludingdevelopingandharmonizingprocedures regarding election access for persons with disabilities that includedisabilityaccommodation;buildingthecapacityofelectionofficialstoeffectivelyaddresselectionaccessinthecomplaintsprocessthroughtrainingandtechnicalassistance;andenhancingtheunderstandinganduseoftheadjudicativeprocessbyelectoralparticipantsandthegeneralpublic.Suchtraining

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



19/25

133

Facilitating

an

Equal

Right

to

Vote

for

Persons

with

Disabilities

shouldbedirectedatthediversityofelectionaccessissues,fromtheaccessibilityofcomplaintformsonwebsitestoaccommodationsprovidedintheadjudicationprocess.

Election

institution

building

Strengtheningthepoliticalparticipationofpersonswithdisabilitiesshouldbeanongoingconcernofallgovernmental institutions withresponsibility fordemocraticdecisionmakingincludingbutnotlimitedtoelectionmanagementbodies.Inthatsense,continuousmonitoringforinclusionshouldtakeplacebothpre- andpost-election, including indevelopeddemocracies,aswellastransitional,developing,failedstate,orpost-conflictcontexts.

Thereareavarietyofinstitution-buildinginitiativesthatmaybecontemporaneouswithelectionassistanceormay takeplacepriortoor followinganelectionevent.Eachhasimplicationsforenhancingtheparticipationofindividuals with disabilities in the political process. The orientation of newmembersoflegislaturesontheirrights,responsibilities,anddutiesisamainstayofdevelopmentassistanceandisawellhonedpracticeindevelopeddemocracies(UNDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)2000 : 1; WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization (WIPO),undated).As acomponentoffamiliarizingnew memberswith parliamentaryprocedures andstandardsof ethicalandprofessional conduct, buildingknowledgeabouthuman rights standards iscriticalandshouldintegratecoverageoftherightsofpersonswithdisabilities.TheInter-ParliamentaryUnion(IPU),tonameaprominentexampleofgoodpractice,providesresourcesanddeliverstrainingfornewmemberorientation(IPU,undated).OfparticularnoteistheseriesdevelopedanddisseminatedbytheIPUonavarietyofhumanrightssubjectsthatnowalsoincludesabookontheCRPD(UN2007).Insomeinstances,theelectionofacandidatewithadisabilitymaypromptinstitutionalchange.Wherepersonswithdisabilitiesareelectedtolegislatures,accommodationsmayberequired.InCanada,forexample,theelectionofalegislatorwithadisabilitypromptedthereformofCanadianparliamentaryprocedures(Lordetal.2012:53–4),andtheelectionofamemberofCongresswithadisabilitycausedtheUnitedStatestocreate accessibleentrances to theotherwise unapproachable building(Wall

Street

Journal

2012).Otherentrypointsforadvancinginstitutionstrengtheningthatwillhelpac

commodatevoterswithdisabilitiesconsistentwiththeCRPDandinternational standards include building capacity in policy analysis and formulation,legislativedrafting,settinglegislativepriorities,andarticulatingalegislativeagenda.Likewise,surveyresearchcanbeemployedtoidentifypublicopinion(generalanddisaggregated)oninstitutions,issues,policiesandpolicydirections to better inform agenda setting, policy debate, and decision making(Mitchelletal.2006).Suchexercisescanbehelpfulinidentifyingthebarriersthatpersonswithdisabilitiesexperienceinexercisingtheirpoliticalrights.

D o wnl o



pr i l 4 ,2 0 1 4



20/25

Janet

E.

Lord

et

al.

134

Enhancingtheconsultativeanddeliberativecapacityoflegislativebodiesislikewiseanimportantdimensionofinclusionandservestochannelinputintopublicpoliciesbycitizens,civilsociety,andindependentexperts.Toooften,however,thetoolsofdeliberativedemocracyareanythingbutaccessibletopersonswithdisabilities.Forexample,publicnotificationprocessesforbillspendingconsiderationareinaccessible.Systemstoreceive,process,track,anddisseminateinputreceivedfromthepublic,whetherthroughnationaldialogueprocesses,publichearings, townhall meetings, websites, orothermechanisms,arerifewithbarriersthatmakeitdifficultorimpossibleforpersonswithdisabilitiesandDPOstoparticipate.

Measurestoenhancecommunicationsandtransparencytosecurethepoliticalparticipationrightsofpersonswithdisabilitiesincludethedevelopmentofaccessiblewebsitesthattracklegislativecalendarsandaffordreadyaccesstothedailyrecordsoflegislatureproceedings,reportsfromcommitteehearings,publicnotificationsregardingpendinglegislation,copiesofenactedlegislation,andcontactinformationforlegislativeoffices(UNDP2003;Neuman(ed.)2002).Otherimportantvehiclesforcommunicationonlegislativeactivitiesincludededicatedtelevisionorradiochannelstobroadcastliveand/ortapedcoverageoflegislativeproceedings.Notallmediawillbeaccessibletopersonswithdisabilities, but in some instances, as in televised broadcasts,measuressuchasclosedcaptioningmaybeutilized(Neuman(ed.)2002:4).

All of these transparency mechanismshave vital implications for the enhancementofaccessforpersonswithdisabilities,ortheiroutrightexclusion,inregardtoinformationaboutdecision-makingprocessesthatdirectlyimpacttheirinterests.Accessibilityfeaturesaremakingtheirwayintoelectoralprogramming,eveninsomeoftheworld’sleastdevelopedcountries.InYemen,for example, the disability community, and in particular organizations ofDeaf advocates, workedcloselywith theNationalElection Commissiontoensurethattelevisedelectioninformationwasaccessiblewi