Device to help blind people vote does not meet legal requirements: High Court

The device used to help blind and partially sighted people vote is inadequate and does not meet the legal requirements, the High Court has found.

Giving judgment in a case brought by partially sighted voter Rachael Andrews against the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Swift J found the tactile voting device (TVD) did provide assistance but did not meet the purpose specified in Rule 29(3A) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Ms Andrews, who has myopic macular degeneration and very limited sight, argued that the TDV could not be used if a voter wished to keep their vote private.

The TVD is a sheet of transparent plastic placed on top of the ballot paper, with flaps numbered in Braille that correspond to each candidate.

No other information is present on the TVD and so “there is no way using the TVD alone, that a blind person can know the name of the candidate, or the name of the party the candidate represents,” the judge said.

“The TVD will only permit a blind person to vote without assistance, if she memorised the order of candidates on the ballot paper either before she went to the polling station or while she was there.”

Swift J said that under the rules the ballot is secret, but if a blind voter wished to exercise their right to vote effectively they would have to tell either the presiding officer or a companion who they wished to vote for.

The judge said: “Drawing these matters together, my conclusion is that the present TVD does not represent the fullest possible use of the power at Rule 29(3A). In order to enable a blind person to vote, a device must allow the blind voter to mark the ballot paper against the name of her candidate of choice.

“A device in the form of the present TVD would achieve this if, in addition to the flaps and raised/braille numbers on the right-hand side, the names of the candidates and/or the names of their political parties were present in Braille and/or raised lettering in corresponding position, on the left-hand side of the device.”

He said the present TVD “is not a device within the scope of Rule 29(3A) power as it did not enable blind voters to vote "without any need for assistance" as stated in the rule.

“Regulation 29(3A) of the rules encapsulates a laudable objective – that of enabling blind voters to vote without assistance. The TVD prescribed by regulation 12 of the 2001 Regulations does provide assistance, but it does not itself meet the purpose specified in Rule 29(3A).”

Mark Smulian