Mapping Disabled Americans’ Access to Democracy

Author’s note: The disability community is rapidly evolving to use identity-first language in place of person-first language. This is because it views disability as being a core component of identity, much like race and gender. Some members of the community, such as people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, prefer person-first language. In this article, the terms are used interchangeably.

“Voting is supposed to be a private, independent process, and when I couldn’t enter the building or had to complete my ballot from my vehicle, I felt that independence slip away,” shared Hope R., a disabled voter from Mississippi.¹ Hope’s story echoes around the country: Disabled Americans have long faced barriers to exercising their right to vote. In fact, they were more than three times as likely as voters without disabilities to report difficulty casting a ballot in the 2022 election.

A wave of restrictive voting laws and regulations proposed or enacted in recent years has only exacerbated these barriers to voting. Between 2021 and 2024, states passed a total of 79 restrictive voting laws, including measures in Texas and Georgia that limit who may assist disabled and older adult voters with completing and returning their ballots. And federally, the Trump administration is increasing barriers to voting through executive action, administrative changes, and legislation—including by requiring proof of citizenship to obtain a mail-in ballot. Disabled voters are disproportionately affected by these restrictive policies because many rely on mail-in ballots due to the barriers they may face voting in person.

The number of voting-eligible adults with disabilities represents a major portion of voters that will continue to grow. According to Rutgers University, 31.1 million disabled people were eligible to vote and 15.8 million disabled people reported voting in November 2022; in the 2024 general election, 40.2 million people with disabilities were estimated to be eligible to vote. According to professor Lisa Schur, co-director of the Rutgers Program for Disability Research, “People with disabilities are the sleeping tiger in American politics. They represent a large and growing portion of the electorate, and they could make a critical difference in the outcome of [the 2024 general election] and future elections.”

As part of the Center for American Progress’ continued work on disabled people’s access to democracy, this project surveyed disability and civic organizations across the county to evaluate voting accessibility in each state. The authors used the data to create an interactive Accessible Democracy Tracker, which provides users with comprehensive, state-specific voting and election accessibility scores based on survey data from state and local disability and civic organizations. The tracker also offers stories from disabled voters across the country, national and state action targets, and national and state disability and civic organizations to whom users can turn for more information on voting accessibility efforts.

Early findings: Accessibility varies across the voting process

The data from the Accessible Democracy Tracker show that disabled voters face numerous barriers at every stage of the voting process. Responding organizations reported challenges related to voter registration efforts, access to voting information, in-person voting, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, and voting by mail. At the time of publication, 88 completed survey responses representing organizations in 40 states yielded a national voting accessibility score of 3.3 out of 5, suggesting that while many states have taken steps to improve access, significant barriers remain.

Accessibility varied considerably across different aspects of voting. Voter registration efforts received the lowest national score (2.4), indicating that states provide limited accessible registration events and opportunities. By contrast, voting by mail (3.7) and ADA compliance (3.8) received the highest scores. In-person voting (3.4) and voting information (3.2), meanwhile, fell in the middle. These early findings suggest that disabled people are more likely to deal with steeper barriers to registering to vote and voter information and that voting by mail is an important access measure for the disability community:

• Registration efforts: Organizations shared that most states offered very limited help registering disabled people to vote. While some organizations partner with their secretary of state’s office to host voter registration events for the disability community, most shared that they hosted registration events independently.
• Voting information: Information accessibility emerged as a particularly important issue. Mercy, a disabled voter in Massachusetts, shared: “I am Deaf and hard of hearing, and one of the accommodations that I need is captions. And whenever information is being presented to voters, it’s usually in video form without captions.”² Across states, organizations reported that inaccessible websites, videos, sample ballots, and voter education materials can prevent disabled voters from fully participating in elections.
• Voting in person: Many organizations said that a lack of free, accessible transportation made it much harder for disabled people to vote. Few states provided centralized, free, accessible transportation to polling places, including for people living in rural areas. Some free services only served cities and large counties.
• ADA compliance: Organizations supporting disabled voters most frequently reported barriers related to physically inaccessible polling locations, transportation and parking challenges, long wait times with limited or no seating, or inaccessible voting machines. Respondents also identified a need for greater poll worker training on disability access and accommodations—facilitated by disabled people themselves. Organizations shared that “not all poll workers remember/know how to use the accessible voting machines” and that poll workers are trained, but “they are scared and always unprepared when voters ask to use” the accessible voting machines. Some states and counties, such as Illinois and Salt Lake County in Utah, have partnered with disability and voting rights organizations to prepare training for poll workers. In another example, Nebraska’s protection and advocacy organization Disability Rights Nebraska collaborated with the secretary of state’s office to produce an instructional video about the features of accessible voting machines.
• Voting by mail: While respondents identified barriers across all voting methods, many organizations reported that voting by mail offered an important accessible option for disabled voters. However, respondents also noted concerns regarding ballot return processes, restrictions on assistance for disabled voters, and potential policy changes that could limit access to absentee and mail voting.

Targeted issue areas

The Accessible Democracy Tracker features state-specific issue area targets, gathered from state and local disability and civic organizations working to ensure disabled people can vote.

Common ideas for improvement across states include:

• Developing statewide and local registration efforts specifically targeted to disabled voters
• Providing nonpartisan information on candidates and elections, including sample ballots, in accessible formats in print, video, and online
• Providing free, accessible transportation to the polls
• Updating accessible voting machines and providing accessible ballot-reading tools
• Ensuring that the interior and exterior of polling places are accessible and that they provide curbside voting
• Providing enhanced accessibility training for poll workers, developed and taught by disabled people
• Ensuring there is access to multilingual interpreter services, including American Sign Language, either in person or virtually

Most of these recommendations are mandated by disability and election laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Help America Vote Act. Yet disabled people continue to face barriers in accessing their right to vote. As access to the polls continues to be stripped away through state and federal actions, it is increasingly evident that disabled people need more voter resources and stronger voter protections. In addition, respondents consistently emphasized the importance of involving disabled people in voter registration efforts, planning for in-person voting, and training to ensure that accessibility measures reflect the needs and experiences of disabled voters.

Conclusion

The Accessible Democracy Tracker demonstrates that voting accessibility is shaped not only by state or federal law but also by implementation, training, communication practices, and whether disabled voters are treated as equal participants in democracy. Across the country, disabled voters and disability organizations reported barriers ranging from inaccessible polling locations and websites to inaccessible voter education materials, lack of transportation options, and insufficient poll worker training. At the same time, respondents identified practical solutions that could improve accessibility, including stronger partnerships with disability organizations, expanded access to absentee voting, and disability-led training efforts.

CAP plans to continue collecting survey submissions from state-based and local disability and civic organizations in order to conduct state-level analysis, produce state-based issue briefs, and perform longitudinal data analysis to analyze changes in voting accessibility scores in states over time. Ensuring that disabled people can participate fully in elections is essential to our democracy, and the Accessible Democracy Tracker offers a tool to help organizations and advocates identify where progress has been made and where additional work remains.

The authors would like to thank Bill Rapp, Hai-Lam Phan, Olivia Mowry, Toni Pandolfo, William Roberts, Ben Olinsky, Peter Gordon, Alex Cogan, Gréta Bedekovics, Huá Huī Vogel, Raven Diaz, Michelle Bishop, Dr. Doug Kruse, and Dr. Lisa Schur for their valuable contributions to this project; Chandler Hall and Saami Baig for their thorough fact-checking; and CAP’s Art, Video, Technology, Editorial, and Legal teams for their guidance.

Methodology

CAP’s Disability Justice Initiative team surveyed state and local disability and civic organizations about voting accessibility in their respective state from mid-2024 to mid-2026. The survey included specific questions about voter registration, voting information, voting in person, polling accessibility, and voting by mail.

The development of survey questions was informed by other voting access surveys, toolkits, and interviews from the federal government, Rutgers University, the American Council of the Blind, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, the National Disability Rights Network, and others.

Respondents submitted their responses via Google Form or PDF. The full list of survey questions can be found here. While the survey does not cover every single issue a disabled voter may face when exercising their right to vote, it covers a comprehensive list of aspects that promote or hinder voting access in each state, particularly for disabled voters.

Each state received individual mean scores in five voting categories—registration efforts, voting information, voting in person, ADA compliance, and voting by mail—as well as an overall mean state score, based on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest. The Likert scale is often used in social science research and utilized to measure respondents’ opinions and attitudes.

In addition, each state’s scorecard includes:

• A list of state-focused action items informed by the survey responses
• A list of state-based civic and disability organizations
• A state-specific storyteller testimonial video

The national score, 3.3, was calculated by finding the mean of all survey responses.

There were 88 complete survey responses, two incomplete survey responses, three repeat survey responses, and three responses from individuals not affiliated with a community organization. The latter eight responses were removed from the sample.

These data are not exhaustive. The Center for American Progress continues to collect data; please contact [email protected] if your organization is interested in completing the survey.

Limitations of this dataset include a limited sample size (n = 88), variety by locality and county, potential assumptions used to define voting access categories, and potential challenges with utilizing a Likert scale. While in the aggregate, the Accessible Democracy Tracker and this analysis provide a snapshot of voting accessibility for disabled people across the country, neither the dataset nor the analysis are disaggregated by other factors that may influence survey responses—such as whether respondent organizations are surveying rural or urban areas. We asked organizations to answer the survey questions comprehensively.