Dr. Diane Cordry Golden, an eminent accessibility expert has compiled a point-by-point table comparing the features of the Vote-PAD to the federal Voting System Standards and purporting to show that the Vote-PAD is not accessible to individuals with disabilities. Vote-PAD, Inc. has received copies of her "analysis" from several different sources around the country, but not from Dr. Golden herself.

Dr. Golden has never contacted Vote-PAD, Inc. nor has she indicated an interest in seeing a demonstration of the device.

While Dr. Golden’s credentials as an accessibility expert are impressive, she cannot be considered an expert on the Vote-PAD since she has neither seen it nor observed people with disabilities using it. Nevertheless, she states her conclusions with authority, even as her “analysis” reveals a severe lack of information about the device.

1.	For example, on page one of her document, she says: “No large print output available unless separate hard copy large print ballot is provided. Unless the hard copy can be counted by machine with all other ballots, it will be difficult to ensure a private and secret vote as the large print makes that ballot readily identifiable from all others.” Since the Vote-PAD does not include a large-print ballot, and we do not recommend a large-print ballot, it is clear that Dr. Golden is unfamiliar with the device she is evaluating.
2.	On the second page of her comments, she says: “No controls are available for ballot navigation and marking. Without such controls, a voter with a closed fist, a hand in a fixed position, or a voter with other fine motor limitations will not be able to navigate and mark the ballot.” This is simply incorrect. Voters with precisely those disabilities have used the Vote-PAD independently and successfully.
3.	In fact, Dr. Golden’s entire point-by-point comparison of the Vote-PAD with the federal voting system standards suggests that she mistakenly believes the Vote-PAD is an electronic voting machine, since in September of 2004 she told the Election Assistance Commission Technical Guidelines Development Committee that the FEC 2002 standards “were written specifically to apply only to direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems, which leaves open to question what standards could or should be used to verify accessibility of non-DRE systems.” It appears that she was still of the same mind in August of 2005, when she wrote that the FEC 2002 access standards “apply only to direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems that do not have a voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT).”

Clearly, a strict application of electronic voting system standards to a non-electronic assistive device makes no sense, nor does it take into account the fact that HAVA itself specifically allows the continued use of paper ballot systems, which do not provide electronic controls or features.

It is troubling that disabilities advocates with second-hand, incomplete, and inaccurate information about the Vote-PAD object so strenuously to its approval, while individuals with disabilities who have actually tried it are able to use it successfully to mark a paper ballot independently and privately.

Ellen Theisen
President, Vote-PAD, Inc.