The Accessibility Deficit: Voting Barriers for the 61 Million Americans with Disabilities

Democracy's Unfinished Work

The Americans with Disabilities Act turned 35 in 2025. Yet voting — the most fundamental act of democratic participation — remains disproportionately difficult for the 61 million Americans who live with a disability.

The numbers are stark and worsening. In the 2022 midterms, one in five voters with disabilities either needed assistance or had difficulty casting their ballot. That rate is three times higher than for voters without disabilities. And it increased from 2020 to 2022 — not because more people became disabled, but because the barriers grew.

This is not a marginal issue affecting a small population. One in four American adults has a disability. They vote, they serve on boards, they pay property taxes, they have preferences about how their communities are governed. The question is whether democratic systems are designed to include them.

The Physical Barrier

The most basic requirement of in-person voting is getting into the building and marking a ballot. For millions of Americans, this is where the system fails.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office study found that 83% of polling places had at least one potential barrier for voters with disabilities — including steep ramps, narrow doorways, missing signage, and non-functioning accessible voting machines. While most offered at least one accessible ballot marking device, over one-third lacked a location where voters with disabilities could mark their ballot privately.

The Trend Is Wrong

Between 2020 and 2022, the share of voters with disabilities reporting difficulties increased from 11.4% to 14%. This is the wrong direction.

The data reveals a critical insight: mail-in voting dramatically reduces the disability gap. Voters with disabilities who vote by mail report difficulty at 6% — the same rate as non-disabled in-person voters. The barrier is the polling place, not the voter.

New Laws Are Making It Worse

In 2024, 14 states enacted over a dozen restrictive voting laws that disproportionately impact voters with disabilities. These include:

Laws that criminalize assistance

Several states passed laws criminalizing or restricting who can assist a voter in marking their ballot. For voters with visual impairments, cognitive disabilities, or limited mobility who rely on assistance from trusted individuals, these laws create a direct barrier to participation.

Laws restricting vote-by-mail

States that narrowed eligibility for mail-in voting, eliminated no-excuse absentee voting, or imposed new witness and notarization requirements disproportionately affect voters with disabilities — the group for whom mail-in voting most effectively reduces barriers.

Laws limiting ballot collection

"Ballot harvesting" restrictions — laws that prohibit third parties from collecting and submitting ballots — particularly affect voters with mobility disabilities who cannot travel to a mailbox or drop-off location.

Types of Disabilities, Types of Barriers

Voting barriers are not uniform across disability types. Different conditions create different challenges:

| Disability Type | Primary Voting Barriers | Affected Population | |----------------|------------------------|-------------------| | Mobility | Inaccessible polling places, long lines, transportation | 13.7% of adults | | Cognitive | Complex ballot design, intimidating processes, ID requirements | 10.8% of adults | | Visual | Unreadable ballots, broken accessible machines, inability to verify | 4.6% of adults | | Hearing | No sign language at polling places, inaccessible information | 5.9% of adults | | Self-care/Independent living | Restrictive assistance laws, ballot collection bans | 3.7% / 6.8% of adults |

The Compounding Effect

Many voters have multiple disabilities. A voter who uses a wheelchair and has low vision faces both mobility and visual barriers simultaneously. The accessibility requirements compound — yet polling place design rarely accounts for intersecting needs.

The Community Association Gap

For the 77 million Americans living in HOA and condo communities, voting accessibility in community governance is even worse than in public elections. Public elections are at least subject to ADA requirements. Private community association elections — governed by state statute and community bylaws — often have no accessibility mandates at all.

Traditional HOA voting methods create barriers at every step:

1. Annual meeting attendance — Required for in-person voting; excludes those with mobility or transportation challenges
2. Paper mail-in ballots — Inaccessible for voters with visual impairments or fine motor disabilities
3. Fixed meeting times — Often evenings, conflicting with care schedules and energy management for chronic conditions
4. No assistive technology — No screen readers, no large-print ballots, no alternative formats

Electronic and online voting platforms offer significant accessibility advantages: screen reader compatibility, adjustable text sizes, high-contrast modes, extended voting periods that accommodate variable energy levels, and no transportation requirement. For disabled community members, digital voting is not a convenience — it is the difference between participating and being excluded.

What Works: International Comparisons

Several countries have made significant progress on voting accessibility:

Estonia

Internet voting allows voters with mobility disabilities to vote from home. The system supports assistive technologies and eliminates the need for physical polling place access.

Australia

Compulsory voting combined with extensive accessibility provisions — including telephone voting for blind voters and mobile polling teams that visit care facilities — ensures disabled voters are included in the democratic process.

Sweden

Accessible polling places are mandated by law and systematically audited. Sweden's Election Authority maintains a database of polling place accessibility features, and voters with disabilities can pre-select locations that meet their specific needs.

Methodology and Data Sources

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission — "Voting Experiences Since HAVA: Perspectives of People with Disabilities" (Rutgers University, 2024)
• U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO-18-4 — "Voters with Disabilities: Observations on Polling Place Accessibility and Related Federal Guidance." Full report (PDF).
• MIT Election Lab — Voting Accessibility — Research compendium on election accessibility
• Journalist's Resource / Harvard Shorenstein Center — "Barriers to voting for people with disabilities: A research roundup"
• CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report — "Prevalence of Disabilities and Health Care Access by Disability Status" (2018, based on 2016 BRFSS data)
• Campaign Legal Center — "The Barriers to Voting Faced by Americans with Disabilities"
• PBS NewsHour — "Report finds people with disabilities continue to face outsized barriers to voting" (2024)
• Census Bureau — American Community Survey — Disability prevalence data

All statistics represent the most recently published data as of March 2026.

What This Means

Voting accessibility is not a niche concern. It affects one in four American adults and their families. Every barrier to voting — a broken ramp, an unreadable ballot, a criminalized assistance act, a mandatory in-person meeting — is a choice to exclude.

The technology to make voting accessible exists. Screen readers work. Online ballots work. Extended voting periods work. The question is not capability — it is will. Communities that adopt accessible voting tools get participation from their full membership. Communities that don't get governance shaped by whoever can physically show up.