Modernizing Pa. Elections Starts With 'No Excuse' Absentee Ballots
Voting is a fundamental right, privilege and duty. People with disabilities, however, may find themselves excluded from voting.
May 17, 2019 at 01:44 PM
6 minute read
Voting is a fundamental right, privilege and duty. People with disabilities, however, may find themselves excluded from voting. People with physical disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs and walkers, may be unable to vote at their local polling places on Election Day due to physical barriers precluding them from participating in local voting where they can meet their neighbors and polling officials and participate in civic life. People with intellectual or mental health disabilities may be excluded from voting because of poll workers' prejudice and ignorance as to their capabilities or misunderstanding about the law. People with sensory disabilities may be unable to fully participate in the voting process due to communication barriers, infringing on their right to vote privately and independently. Transportation barriers and poll workers who are unfamiliar with the accessible features on voting equipment make it more difficult for people with disabilities to vote.
Pennsylvania should be a leader in expanding access to all people to exercise their guaranteed right to vote. Over the last year, our commonwealth has seen more serious, bipartisan conversation than it has in a generation on modernizing the election code, enhancing election security, and offering all voters more convenient and modern options for participation. Adopting more inclusive rules for absentee voting is an essential part of those reforms.
Currently, the Pennsylvania Constitution Article VII Section 14 requires the General Assembly to provide for absentee voting for certain enumerated categories of voters. A person may vote by absentee ballot only if they will be absent from their municipality on Election Day due to work, college, vacation or cannot vote at their polling place due to illness, physical disability, observance of a religious holiday or Election Day duties.
The Pennsylvania Election Code, which has not been updated for decades, sets forth confusing and overall restrictive rules for absentee voting. All voters must comply with various timelines to request and submit ballots ahead of Election Day. Voters who may not be able to get to their polling place due to illness or disability-related complications have to predict that far in advance to comply with the timelines. Voters with disabilities must disclose their disability on the application to participate in absentee voting.
For a person who experiences an unexpected illness or disability-related complications on or near Election Day, the barriers to obtaining a “last minute” emergency absentee ballot are virtually insurmountable. After 5 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day, the only way to obtain an absentee ballot is to complete an application, have it notarized, file it with the County Board of Elections, and then once approved, file the completed ballot with the Court of Common Pleas in the county where one is registered to vote. It is difficult to understand how a voter could accomplish all that if they are too sick or physically unable to get to their polling location. While the rules allow a person to designate in writing a representative to deliver the ballot from the county to the voter and then to the Court, the process is still unnecessarily onerous.
Electoral reform that permits “no excuse absentee ballots” or “optional vote by mail” would benefit many populations who have difficulty getting to a polling place, including people with disabilities, the elderly, shift workers, first responders and medical professionals. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have already adopted these more permissive and inclusive approaches. Three states have adopted a system in which all voting is done by mail and registered voters are mailed a ballot automatically. Voting systems that do not require excuses for absentee balloting are linked to significantly higher turnout among all voters and in particular voters with disabilities.
Recently, a package of voting modernization bills has been introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate. The package includes bills that address no excuse absentee ballots, the establishment of vote center, curbside voting, consolidation of small precincts, and elimination of straight party voting, to name a few.
S.B. 411 proposes to amend Section 14 of Article VII to state that absentee ballots should be available to anyone who for any reason is absent from their municipality on Election Day. This amendment is too restrictive and misses the mark. Absence from the municipality would still be required for any absentee ballot, and, importantly, it would strip current constitutional guarantees for individuals to vote absentee due to physical disabilities or illness.
The consensus of the advocacy community is that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to enact reform, as the Pennsylvania General Assembly is able to expand access to voting beyond the floor of protections provided in the state constitution. The acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of State concurs that such reforms can be enacted through legislation without a constitutional amendment. A statutory approach would allow these reforms to be in place before the 2020 presidential election. The reforms should permit no excuse balloting and make obtaining a last minute ballot much easier.
Another important reform must be made to absentee balloting in Pennsylvania. Currently, blind, low vision and other print-disabled voters must go to a polling location if they wish to vote privately and independently, as the absentee ballot is available only in paper form. Nondisabled voters can vote by absentee ballot independently at home, work or other convenient location whereas voters with disabilities cannot. This is unequal access to the ballot. Pennsylvania needs to implement an accessible electronic ballot delivery system, in which a ballot is delivered to the voter's computer, where it can be read and completed with screen-reading software and printed for submission. There are a number of accessible electronic delivery systems available. By implementing such a system Pennsylvania would be providing these voters with the opportunity to vote privately and independently that is equal to the opportunity provided voters without disabilities.
Collectively, voting modernization bills must ensure that voters with disabilities are provided the opportunity to exercise their right to vote that is equal to the opportunity provided voters without disabilities in accordance with federal law.
Gabe Labella is a staff attorney and project director for Protection and Advocacy for Voter Access at Disability Rights Pennsylvania (DRP), an independent, statewide, nonprofit corporation designated as the federally mandated protection and advocacy agency in our commonwealth. DRP is part of a national network of disability rights nonprofit organizations that protect and advocate for the rights of children and adults with disabilities. Contact her at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Being a Profession is Not Malarkey
- 2Bring NJ's 'Pretrial Opportunity Program' into the Open
- 3High-Speed Crash With Police Vehicle Nets $1.6 Million Settlement
- 4Embracing a ‘Stronger Together’ Mentality: Collaboration Best Practices for Attorneys
- 5Selling Law. How to Get Hired, Paid and Rehired
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250