A group of Californians who are blind and disability advocacy groups have sued the state of California, asserting the state's vote by mail program is not inclusive enough, because it does not also give voters who are blind or otherwise disabled the option to vote electronically from home.
The lawsuit was filed March 8 in San Francisco federal court by the California Council of the Blind; the National Federation of the Blind of California; and individual plaintiffs Christopher Gray, of San Francisco County; Russell Rawlings, of Sacramento County; and Vita Zavoli, of Alameda County.
According to the complaint, each of the individual plaintiffs is either blind or has cerebral palsy.
The lawsuit takes aim at California's Vote-by-Mail program.
Under that program, mail-in ballots are sent to all California registered voters. They can then fill out the ballot and return it to their election authorities to be counted, either through the U.S. Postal Service, in person to an elections official, or at a designated ballot drop-off location.
California voters can also opt to participate in California's so-called Remote Accessible Vote-by-Mail program. This option allows them to receive and complete their ballot electronically on their own device, such as a personal computer.
The complaint notes this system is designed to benefit voters with certain disabilities, as it can be used with screen readers or a "sip-and-puff device" to navigate and complete their ballot.
However, the complaint notes that the system is not paperless, as people using the RAVBM system must still print out their ballot, place it in a government-issued paper ballot return envelope, and physically return it to their elections authorities, in the same manner as standard vote-by-mail balloting.
The lawsuit asserts California's vote-by-mail programs still violate disability access and protection laws and violate the right to vote of those with disabilities, such as those who are blind or otherwise have certain disabilities.
Particularly, they claim the requirement that the RAVBM ballot must still be printed can leave these voters in need of assistance from others.
"Each of these steps presents barriers that force voters with print disabilities to seek assistance from another person, thereby depriving them of their rights to vote independently and to keep their vote confidential, even though voters without print disabilities are not similarly required to relinquish those rights," the lawsuit said.
The complaint noted that voters with disabilities can still vote confidentially in person or deposit their RAVBM ballot in person, without assistance, to maintain confidentiality.
But the lawsuit asserted that is not enough.
The plaintiffs say the state must instead be compelled to give voters with "print disabilities" the easy opportunity to vote electronically entirely from home, using their own personal devices, without the need to print a ballot or use the Postal Service to submit their ballot.
The complaint notes the state has such an "e-return option" for "certain military and overseas voters, who are permitted to fax their ballot selections via the internet."
The complaint further asserts 12 other states offer "at least certain voters with disabilities" to vote electronically. The complaint said this includes at least four states using Democracy Live's OmniBallot software. According to the complaint, the OmniBallot software is used by more than half of California's counties to administer the RAVBM program, though without an e-return option.
The complaint asserts Democracy Live has claimed "it would be easy to add an e-return option" to those RAVBM programs.
The lawsuit asserts California state elections officials have been aware of plaintiffs' demands and concerns for at least months, and have taken no action.
The lawsuit seeks a court order "requiring Defendant to certify a remote accessible vote-by-mail system with an accessible electronic ballot return option that allows voters with print disabilities to cast their ballots privately and independently."
They are also seeking an award of attorney fees.
Plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Sean Betouliere, Shawna L. Parks and Rosa Lee Bichell, of Disability Rights Advocates, of Berkeley; Frederick P. Nisen and Karie Lew, of Disability Rights California, of Sacramento; and Eve Hill, Neel Lalchandani and Lauren J. Kelleher, of Brown Goldstein & Levy, of Baltimore, Maryland.