Groups Sue New York Over Inaccessible Online Voter Registration for People With Disabilities
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union and Disability Rights Advocates today sued the New York State Board of Elections and Department of Motor Vehicles over online voter registration that is inaccessible to people with disabilities.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, the Center for the Independence of the Disabled, and individual plaintiffs who are blind. States are required by law to meet accessibility and confidentiality standards when providing services such as online voter registration, but New York is failing to comply, the complaint charges.
“Online voter registration is key to ensuring access to the ballot for people with disabilities. Yet in New York, it's not just difficult for hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities to register online, it's virtually impossible,” said ACLU attorney Susan Mizner. “We’ve told the state where the worst barriers are. It can easily fix the problems, but has refused to do so. ”
Those barriers include DMV web pages and downloadable forms that can't be read out loud by the screen-reader software used by blind and low-vision people to hear and navigate computer screen content. On the privacy rights front, the software cannot read the fillable form’s section on party affiliation on the Board of Elections website; blind and low-vision voters are forced to disclose this private information when they print out the form and get someone else to help them sign it, destroying their privacy and independence.
“Everyone has the right to register to vote privately and independently, and online services are a great way to make that happen. Yet, because the state’s websites aren’t coded to operate with screen readers and other accessibility software, voters with disabilities can’t access those services. Voters should not be excluded from online registration or have their privacy violated just because they have a disability,” said Disability Rights Advocates attorney Christina Brandt-Young.
Plaintiff Eva Eason of New York City encountered numerous obstacles when attempting to update her voter information online after getting married. Eason, who is blind, could not access the DMV site at all, and was only able to access the Board of Elections online registration after getting assistance from someone who is sighted, compromising her privacy and independence.
“A lot of people paved the way and fought for me to be able to vote, so why is New York making it so difficult?” said Eason.
Plaintiff Meghan Schoeffling of Albany added, “I was thrilled when New York created an online voter registration form, thinking it would enable me and others to register to vote privately and independently for the first time. But because the DMV failed to ensure the site was fully accessible, I was unable to register to vote without sighted assistance.”
The lawsuit cites violations of the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. It seeks immediate adjustments to ensure the websites are legally compliant; creation of Board of Election policies that ensure accessibility and provide a clear path of accountability; and the development of policies and procedures to ensure the sites remain accessible.
“There are many barriers that can stand in the way of New Yorkers with disabilities exercising their right to vote. The shame of inaccessible online registration is that there is an easy and inexpensive fix. It's a mystery why the New York State Board of Elections refuses to do it, and it’s disappointing. People with disabilities have the right to privacy and independent registration and voting just like every other New York voter. It's the law,” said Susan Dooha, executive director of the Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York.
The complaint, Eason v. New York State Board of Elections, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Co-counsel in this case is Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP.
Mark Riccobono, president of the National Federation of the Blind, said, “The right to vote is a fundamental one, and equal access to this right cannot and must not be denied to blind Americans. Equal access means the ability to participate in all aspects of the voting process, including registering to vote, with complete privacy and independence. The National Federation of the Blind is committed to ensuring equal access for blind voters in New York and across the nation.”
The complaint is at: /legal-document/eason-v-new-york-state-board-electio...
This statement is at: /news/groups-sue-new-york-over-inaccessible-online-voter-registration-people-disabilities
More information is at: /cases/eason-v-new-york-state-board-elections
Disability Rights
Voting Rights
Eason v. New York State Board of Elections
Disability Rights
Voting Rights
Eason v. New York State Board of Elections
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
CaliforniaDec 2024
Disability Rights
Powers v. McDonoughPowers v. McDonough
Every night, thousands of veterans sleep without shelter on the streets of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs owns hundreds of acres of land in prime West Los Angeles—land directly adjacent to a VA medical facility that was once earmarked to house veterans, but today is instead home to private school sports fields and an oil well. In November 2022, a group of unhoused veterans and a non-profit organization filed suit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans’ abilities to access the benefits they are entitled to by law, leaving many stranded on the streets after serving our country. The veterans sued the VA under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal statute that prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek the construction of significant units of permanent supportive housing on the The VA argued that a provision of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”)— a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefits determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Should the court accept this position, it would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to have their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and other generally applicable nondiscrimination statutes enforced. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals. -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Lawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to ProceedLawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to Proceed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today rejected the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law firm Sheppard Mullin. The lawsuit contends that the District’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities by deploying armed police officers to address the vast majority of mental health crises while sending trained medical professionals to most other health emergencies. “This ruling moves us one step closer to bringing essential, life-saving emergency mental health care to D.C. communities. Qualified providers are best equipped to handle mental health emergencies with skills and compassion; police with a gun only serve to escalate, handcuff, and arrest,” said Ashika Verriest, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Far too many people are harmed at the hands of police during a mental health crisis, or simply receive ineffective care. This must end.” The plaintiff in the case is Bread for the City, a D.C.-based nonprofit supporting underserved communities. The lawsuit contends that the District’s unequal response to mental health crises violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling will move the case forward, allowing the ACLU to show in court that a fully functioning mental health crisis response system that sends a medical, rather than a law enforcement, response to most mental health crises is legally required. “Relying on mental health professionals, not armed police, to serve people experiencing mental health crises is not just logical, it’s required under the law. Today’s decision made clear that communities can’t single out mental health emergencies for worse services than other health emergencies,” said Michael Perloff, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia. The ruling comes on the heels of a recommendation made in a similar case filed against Washington County, Oregon by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard Mullin. On August 30, 2024, a federal magistrate judge recognized that sending police, rather than health providers to a mental health crisis, may be discrimination against people with mental health disabilities in violation of federal law. The magistrate judge recommended that the case proceed. More details about the case are accessible here: /cases/bread-for-the-city-v-district-of-columbia -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint