Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation. Also, check out our blog and twitter feed.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  Take Action  »  Resources  »  Voting Accessibility  »  Accessible and Verifiable Voting ...


Accessible and Verifiable Voting Technology: A Feature Comparison

Verified Voting Foundation
June 21st, 2005

[Major overhaul of this chart scheduled for publication on August 2.] 

Some are concerned that requirements for voter-verified paper records may delay implementation of the Help America Vote Act’s (HAVA) provisions for accessible voting systems. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Equipment exists today offering both accessible and auditable voting for all voters; it is not necessary to choose between the two.

Not all accessible equipment is created equal, however. Some systems offer a wider range of options. Some offer accessible features on all units, while others provide those features only when required. Demonstrations of auditable and accessible voting equipment have taken place from New Jersey to Oregon in recent months. Some vendors have worked with accessibility advocates to develop cross-disability access and broaden the range of available features and options. The chart below shows some of the possibilities and the links available on many items lead to further information. [print] [key] [footnotes] [accessibility] [accessibility research]

Vendor Model Zoom/ Fontsize Contrast Color- shift Audio Tactile keypad Sip/Puff option Languages VVPR on all?
All units accessible Additional features Fed Cert to 2002 standards?
AccuPoll AVS 1000 1 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes always yes VVPR readback yes
AutoMark (ES&S) ballot marking device 2 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes always yes VVPR readback yes
Avante Vote Trakker 3 Yes yes yes yes yes no unlimited always yes VVPR readback no
Avante Vote Trakker Full Face 4 yes yes yes yes yes no unlimited always yes VVPR readback no
Avante Optical Vote Trakker 5 yes yes yes yes yes no unlimited always yes VVPR readback yes
Diebold Accuvote TS 6 yes no no yes no no yes optional no
no
Diebold Accuvote TSx 7 yes ? no yes no no yes optional no
no
ES&S iVotronic 8 none listed none listed none listed yes yes no yes optional no
yes
ES&S iVotronic LS 9 yes yes none listed yes yes no yes optional no
no
Hart Intercivic eSlate 10 no no no yes yes yes yes optional no jelly switches yes
Sequoia Edge 11 none listed none listed none listed yes none listed no yes optional no
no
Sequoia Advantage 12 none listed none listed none listed yes none listed no yes no
no
no


Key to Chart:

A. “Zoom/Fontsize” = capability to enlarge font so that voters with limited vision can more easily read the text.

B. “Contrast” = increase or change contrast so text stands out. Helps voters with limited vision.

C. “Color Shift” varies the colors shown on the screen, for voters with color-blindness and/or limited vision.

D. “Audio” refers to a feature which allows voters to hear the instructions and ballot choices read to them through headphones. Some systems use synthesized voice, while others use human voice. [Only the AutoMark offers synchronized audio/video (enables the audio interface to be synchronized to the text being displayed on the screen, an important benefit for voters with a variety of cognitive impairments). New Draft NIST Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines indicate "it is anticipated that this will become a requirement in future versions [of the VVSG].”]

E. “Tactile keypad” refers to manual controls which may include Braille, specially raised or shaped buttons, etc. to facilitate the selection of choices as the voter goes through the ballot.

F. “Sip/puff option” indicates whether a type of assistive device known as sip-puff can be attached to the voting system for voters unable to use manual controls or touchscreen.

G. “Languages” = assistance for voters who speak languages other than English.

H. “VVPR on all?” indicates whether the voter-verified paper record audit feature is available as part of every device, or whether it is an optional add-on.

I. “All units accessible” reflects whether the accessibility features are on each unit, or whether they are optional add-ons.

J. “Additional features” shows any other options or features which enhance accessibility. "VVPR readback" means that the voter can hear an audio readback of the voter-verified paper record itself, not merely an audio readback of the electronic record.

K. “Fed cert. to 2002 standards?” – Not all equipment in use or available today is certified to the newest federal standards (2002). Some have components which are, but the entire system may not be. The prior standards are from 1990.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.accupoll.com/TheAccuPollAdvantage/Brochures/accessibility.pdf
2. http://www.essvote.com/HTML/docs/AutoMark.pdf Note: Although some maintain that ballot-marking devices are not accessible to mobility-impaired and dexterity-impaired individuals due to the need to move the paper ballot from the device to the secure ballot box, in most areas election workers insert the ballots into the ballot box for all voters, and since it is possible to use privacy sleeves to maintain ballot secrecy, the ballot-marking devices provide as much accessibility to mobility-impaired and dexterity-impaired voters as to all other voters.
3. http://www.vote-trakker.com/White%20Papers/ ACCESSIBILE%20VOTING%20with%20voter%20verifiable%20paper%20records%20 in%20DRE%20Voting%20System.pdf
4. http://www.vote-trakker.com/White%20Papers/ FULLFACE%20BALLOT%20TOUCH-SCREEN%20SYSTEM- edited%20for%20new%20system.pdf
5. http://www.vote-trakker.com/accessible_optical_voting.html
6. http://www6.diebold.com/dieboldes/accuvote_ts.htm
7. http://www6.diebold.com/dieboldes/accuvote_tsx.htm
8. http://www.essvote.com/HTML/docs/iVotronic.pdf
9. http://www.essvote.com/HTML/docs/ESS_iVotronic_LS.pdf
10. http://www.hartintercivic.com/files/accessible_DLA_12_rev.pdf
11. http://www.sequoiavote.com/docs/AVCEdge.pdf
12. http://www.sequoiavote.com/productguide.php?product= AVC%20Advantage&type=Introduction

 

Announcements

August 26, 2010
On Indias Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in RutgersNewark Law Schools Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map