Contents.
- Accessible Registration.
- Accessible Polling Cards.
- Accessing Polling Centres.
- Privacy.
- Accessibility Problems with the Tactile Voting Template (TVT).
- Insufficient Colour Contrast on Green Paper.
- Returning Officer Feedback to the Franchise Unit of the DHLG.
- The Discretionary 2-Hour Cut-Off.
- CRPD-Compliant Disability-Proofing.
- General Recommendations.
Appendix A. Excerpt from Manual For Presiding Officers.
1. Accessible Registration.
The degree of accessible registration varies among the thirty-one Local Authorities, and it is to be welcomed that there is to be one registration portal from 2025, at www.voter.ie.
Galway County Council began online voter registration in about 2010, and two or three other counties immediately began to use the same system, borrowed from Galway. If compliant with the 2016 EU Websites Accessibility Directive (2016) and European Accessibility Act (2019), as well as VVI’s guidance on accessible websites na d forms, online registration is welcomed by many visually impaired people for making the process more accessible and convenient.
However, even for visually impaired people who have good online skills, assistance may still be required for certain aspects of the registration, such as acquiring photo ID and dealing with papers to be signed by an Garda Síochána. Close consultation and active involvement of VVI, as per Article 4 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), is essential to make the process work for all visually impaired people, including those with least resources and supports.
Similarly, many visually impaired people do not have good computer skills, and as such, may need even more additional assistance in accessing the registration process. Once again, a precondition of such accessibility is the Human Rights to consultations specific to DPROs such as VVI are obligatory under Article 4 (3), and in keeping with Article 29 (b (ii)) of the CRPD.
2. Accessible Polling Cards.
While, technically, as we were told by the Franchise Unit of Dublin City Council, voters do not need to show polling cards at polling stations during referenda, polling cards do expedite proceedings. Also, visually impaired people may find it more difficult to locate identification – for example we are not eligible for drivers’ licenses – and as such, an accessible polling card can help.
The Franchise Unit of Dublin City Council, on request, will email the polling card by default. This means that the voter can then show the polling card on screen to officials at polling stations in a much more accessible way for many.
Local Authorities around the country should be made aware of this option so that they can then advertise it and otherwise offer it to visually impaired voters.
3. Accessing Polling Centres.
Source link twitter: https://x.com/ElecCommIRL/status/1766225173404164345?s=20
3.1. Voting-Related Signs Dangerously Located.
3.2. Postering.
3.3. Finding the Polling Station.
3.1. Voting-Related Signs Dangerously Located.
The ‘Ionad Votála’, ‘Polling Station’ and ‘voting this way’ signs issued to presiding officers are often located less than 2.3m above the ground, meaning that they are low-hanging enough to cause injury to visually impaired voters. Presiding officers should be instructed, before every polling day, that such signs should be more than 2.3m clear of the ground, and securely fastened so that they are not left swinging down as a result of gusts.
3.2. Postering.
As ever, our members experienced difficulties with low-hanging referendum posters, which endanger our safety and long-term health when we collide with them. One of our members sustained a long-term brain injury after colliding with a low-hanging poster in 2014, which also led to the loss of the remainder of his sight.
An Coimisiún Toghcháin states that it has no responsibility for the details of postering bylaws and policy etc., but we can see no reason why it cannot advise on this feature of referenda/elections. Either way, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage is in a position to promulgate legislation to make sure that our safety is guaranteed in this respect.
3.3. Finding the Polling Station.
Some of our members who travelled independently to their polling station got lost and were much delayed in eventually finding the polling station. This occurrence is much more frequent now that there is an avalanche of disabling design being visited on our urban roads and streets by the National Transport Authority, in particular. Even apart from this, election posters are often hung dangerously low, meaning that independent travelling by visually impaired voters on their way to polling stations has traditionally been, and remains, hazardous.
Also, since polling stations are usually not frequently visited by our members, routes can be difficult to memorise, even where the placemaking has not been ruined. The exterior design of schools has also been ignoring CRPD obligations of consultations with DPROs on universal design, and as such, wayfinding for visually impaired people can be nigh on impossible in them, and even hazardous when obstacles such as unprotected cycle-stands are included.
We propose that a help number be made available for each polling station, whereby a visually impaired person who is unsure as to the location of the polling station, can call and ask for assistance in reasonable vicinity of the polling station.
4. Privacy.
4.1. Training of Polling Officers.
4.2. Easels and Wall-Facing Booths.
4.1. Training of Polling Officers.
Some of our members felt that the polling officer assisting them with their voting was too close while they were voting, meaning that the vote was not as private as they would have wished. This should be a matter of training, that a polling official is trained that if a visually impaired person wishes to vote on their own, then the official merely needs to establish that the visually impaired voter is happy in their understanding of how the TVT works and that the paper is properly aligned, and then just let them at it, with the official’s back turned to the visually impaired voter.
For elections, we think it very important that three further steps be taken to ensure privacy.
4.2. Easels and Wall-Facing Booths.
Election papers are far too long for the polling benches. This is not a problem for people who are not visually impaired, since they can just bend the paper accordingly. However, for those of us who use the TVT, this is not an option. We might vainly try to turn the page sideways, so that the top and bottom of the paper are facing left and right sides of the polling booth, respectively, but this involves uncomfortable contortions that cannot be sustained for very long.
Voting at open tables etc., is not an option, because we cannot tell if someone is looking at us while we vote.
As such, at least one booth should be turned towards the wall, so that a voter has their back to the wall when voting. To overcome the election TVT length issue, a plywood or chipboard easel should be available allowing the voter to put the polling paper on a stable slant in order to facilitate comfortable and accurate voting. We have seen prototypes of such easels from one manufacturer.
Furthermore, it would be more conducive to privacy were there one TVT per paper, instead of having to change over during the voting procedure, which involves interaction with the presiding officer which should not be otherwise necessary.
5. Accessibility Problems with the Tactile Voting Template.
The referendum TVTs were the same ones last used in 2019 – which was their first time out, and at that stage, quite experimental. This first batch has two significant design flaws.
5.1. Braille Type.
5.2. Raised Print Insufficiently Clear.
5.3. Separating English and Irish Text.
5.1. Braille Type.
Because Unified English Braille (UEB) is used in this TVT, even for Irish text, the ‘á’ and ‘í’ each take three cells instead of one, so that tá takes five cells instead of two, and níl takes six cells instead of three. This is both confusing and cumbersome. Sighted people only have to read two and three-letter words in this case, where braille-readers, for no good reason, are being forced to read the equivalent to five and six letter words, respectively. This barrier to intelligibility is discriminatory.
The reason why this extraordinary mistake happened was that the Franchise Unit approached the NCBI, as the primary braille service-provider, to advise on brailling instructions. The result appears very much like a non-braille-reading member of staff put all the text through the converter in Duxbury software, using Unified English Braille for everything.
Moreover, even the use of Unified English Braille is only appropriate in terms of private use where choice is available, and not in public contexts. For instance, in this case, the unnecessary use of a capitalised initial for “yes” and “no,” meant that these words had four and three cells (equivalent to print letter spaces), respectively.
The solution is to use non-UEB, or Standard English Braille, Grade 1, in the brailling of a new batch of referendum TVTs. Technically, this means that the old Standard Irish Braille should be used for the Irish lettering, so that each acute accent letter only occupies one cell, and that there are no capital letters.
5.2. Raised Print Insufficiently Clear.
The edges of the raised print letters are shampered, instead of straight-edged, and as such, are unclear, making them difficult or impossible for some of our members to read. Some of our members have reduced sensitivity in their fingers, and so it is vital that the edges of raised print be exceptionally clear.
5.3. Separating English and Irish Text.
One of our members wrote, “I found the template cluttered and wonder should they have put the Tá on the left of the box and Yes to the right of it and likewise in the case of Níl and No on the second line.”
It is our position that, unless required in in educational or research contexts, languages in accessible formats should be kept strictly separate. This is because of the principle of “keep it simple” in such formats being paramount, and the related increased chances of unnecessary confusion where languages are mixed.
Accordingly, we advise that the Irish language options be to the left of the voting spaces on the TVTs, and the English options to the right.
6. Insufficient Colour Contrast on Green Paper.
One of the referendum papers was white, and the other was green, both with black text on them. Some of our members felt a bit uncomfortable using the green paper since the shade of green was a bit too dark. We realise the importance of being able to distinguish between the two ballot-papers at a glance for sighted officials, including at the count centres. However, this should also be easily accessible by visually impaired voters, and VVI is the body prescribed by the CRPD to be closely consulted and actively involved from the concept stage in looking how this change of standard is to be created.
7. Returning Officer Feedback to the Franchise Unit of the DHLG.
Presiding Officers did not generally seem to be interested in collating feedback on the voting experience of visually impaired people. While this system is potentially flawed, especially because failings of their own or their colleagues are liable to be covered over, it is still useful to have an extra channel of fault-reporting to aid in election planning.
Mostly voters would not know that the polling official was expected to report back to the Returning Officer regarding any problems, but where problems arose and our members were aware of this duty, they had to prompt the polling officer in this regard, before notes were taken.
This could be a matter of training.
8. The Discretionary 2-Hour Cut-Off.
In keeping with the 1992 Electoral Act, In Section 3.10 of the Manual for Presiding Officers, it is explicitly stated that election officers have discretion to deny the right of disabled people to vote in the final two hours of voting.
Section 3.10 of the handbook states:
“you may refuse to mark ballot-papers for an elector with a physical disability, visual impairment or literacy difficulty where the request is made within two hours before the close of the poll if you feel that compliance with the request would interfere with the proper discharge of your duty or unduly obstruct other electors. People with disabilities may be limited in the transport options available to them at certain times of the day, so you should refuse a request only if it’s absolutely necessary…”
The absence of a definition of what is meant by “absolutely necessary,” leaves the decision purely at the discretion of a Presiding Officer. Since all polling stations should be adequately staffed, we ask how is it possible that any situation could mean that it is “absolutely necessary” to deny a disabled person their right to vote at a polling station…and remember that this prescription is only targeted at disabled voters, and no-one else.
This advice by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which is responsible for elections in Ireland, is a clear violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Ireland ratified in 2018, and which contains the following internationally-binding obligation: “States Parties shall guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others” (CRPD, Article 29).
While this advice would appear to be a disabling tradition in Ireland, “in this day and age,” as one of our members put it, “you’d think they’d know the meaning of discrimination. It is as if we are still being treated like second-class citizens.”
9. CRPD-Compliant Disability-Proofing.
9.1. Training Advice.
9.2. Ignoring Consultation Obligations.
9.3. Language.
9.1. Training Advice.
As if CRPD obligations didn’t exist, the Department advises, in the Manual, that Presiding Officers use a training resource by the National Disability Authority (NDA) which, as is clear by NDA’s own description, is out-of-date.
“We produced a short online training module on disability equality awareness in 2011. It is currently being revised to reflect new legislation and practice, and to make it more accessible. It is expected to be available in late 2024.”
The NDA’s description also makes clear that the “disability awareness training,” ironically, is not adequately accessible.
“Designed in 2011, the module works best in Google Chrome and was not designed for use on smartphones or tablets.”
https://nda.ie/publications-and-resources/disability-awareness-training
Regarding visual impairment, at least, a far more appropriate and CRPD-compliant resource is VVI’s Manual of Accessible Communications (VVIMAC)
9.2. Ignoring Consultation Obligations.
The use of the NDA as an out-of-date training resource is particularly frustrating since the State, mostly, continues to ignore its cross-cutting obligations to consult directly with disabled people through their representative organisations on all disability-proofing (CRPD, Article 4 (3)).
Disabled Persons’ Representative Organisations, as defined by the UN Committee, are Human-Rights-based; and are led, run, directed and mostly membered by disabled people. Because of the potential for conflict of interests, disability service providers cannot be representative organisations in relation to disability (according to the UN Committee). This excludes the brand-name disability charities in Ireland which continue to masquerade as “representative,” often with the State support – subverting the CRPD it has committed to implement.
9.3. Language.
The State’s traditional reluctance to prioritise the views and opinions of disabled people through their representative organisations is also reflected in the ‘medical model’ language of disability used in the advice:
For example, “people with physical disabilities” instead of ‘people with physical impairments’;
“people with literacy difficulties” instead of ‘people with dyslexia’ or ‘dyslexic people’.
‘Social model’ language of disability speaks of “disabled people,” in recognition that disability is a negative social construct rather than a malady intrinsic to an individual. In other words, we are disabled by prejudice; we are disabled by bad design; we are disabled by unnecessary barriers and by ignorance. In this way, ‘disabled’ is a verb describing what is being done to us by society, and not an adjective which points the finger at us for being different because of our impairments or various conditions.
This is further explained at:
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/3-language-and-terminology/#3.2
10. General Recommendations.
In order for all of us to have the same opportunity of exercising our Human Right to vote, VVI emphasises the importance of a plurality of voting-methods. Some innovations to be considered in a timely manner are:
Online Voting (I-Voting).
i-Voting should be available to all, so as to minimise likelihood of identification of a voter. In general, mainstreaming and universal design – whereby we share different options with all others, rather than being “othered,” is the solution most compatible with our equality of opportunity and Human Rights of full dignity.
Estonia has had secure online voting as an option for everyone since 2005,
https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/e-democracy/
However, it was only much more recently made accessible for users of screenreading technology. While we might say ‘better late than never’, the use of secure online voting in Ireland should have accessibility built into it from the concept stage (as per CRPD, Arts. 4 (3) and 9).
New South Wales had been using i-Voting for visually impaired voters since 2013, but ran into deep difficulties when it tried to extend access to all interested voters in 2021. However, New South Wales is planning to have i-Voting up and running once more for visually impaired voters by 2027.
Telephone Assisted Voting
This option has been available to visually impaired people in Australia since 2013, and is now also used for the same cohort in national elections in New Zealand.
Australia:
https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2013/files/blv.pdf
New Zealand:
Phone-voting is limited to disabled voters in Australia and New Zealand, and the reasons for this should be examined.
While there’s no doubt that telephone assisted voting would be really accessible and convenient for visually impaired people, confidentiality, secrecy and verifiability would need to be explored before it could be introduced.
Appendix A. Excerpt from Manual For Presiding Officers.
Referendum on the Thirty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution, the Family Bill, 2023
And referendum on the Fortieth Amendment of the Constitution (Care Bill, 2023) 8th March, 2024.
Prepared by the Department of the Housing , Local Government and Heritage for the Guidance of Presiding Officers in accordance with the directions above.
3.10. Refusal to mark ballot paper within two hours of close of poll.
You may refuse to mark ballot-papers for an elector with a physical disability, visual impairment or literacy difficulty where the request is made within two hours before the close of the poll if you feel that compliance with the request would interfere with the proper discharge of your duty or unduly obstruct other electors.
People with disabilities may be limited in the transport options available to them at certain times of the day, so you should refuse a request only if it’s absolutely necessary.
An elector with a physical disability, visual impairment or literacy difficulty may have their ballot-papers marked by a companion at any time up to the close of the poll.
Under no circumstances may a ballot-paper be brought outside the polling station to any person, whether incapacitated or otherwise.
That could potentially close the poll two hours earlier for people who are unable to mark the ballot paper independently. It seems a little problematic for that to be given out as official advice.