Russian military aggression against Ukraine, which has been ongoing since 2014, has led to an increase in the number of people with disabilities among both civilians and the military. According to the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, the number of persons with disabilities increased by 300,000 over the two years of full-scale war and amounted to more than 3 million in June 2024. It should be understood that this number will only grow over time.

As a result, Ukraine faces new challenges that have emerged in the area of political participation of the disabled. To identify these problems and find ways of solving them, Civil Network OPORA conducted more than 20 in-depth interviews with leading experts in the field of elections and inclusiveness, and commissioned a sociological survey which was carried out by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. 

International standards

In its Resolution on Access to rights for people with disabilities and their full and active participation in society, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe emphasizes the need to ensure full-fledged participation of the disabled in political and public life. Political rights, including the opportunity to exercise them on par with others, are also guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which imposes positive obligations on the State, in particular (article 29).

a) Ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected, inter alia, by:

i) Ensuring that voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible and easy to understand and use;

ii) Protecting the right of persons with disabilities to vote by secret ballot in elections and public referendums without intimidation, and to stand for elections, to effectively hold office and perform all public functions at all levels of government, facilitating the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate;

iii) Guaranteeing the free expression of the will of persons with disabilities as electors and to this end, where necessary, at their request, allowing assistance in voting by a person of their own choice;

b) Promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in the conduct of public affairs, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and encourage their participation in public affairs, including:

i) Participation in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country, and in the activities and administration of political parties;

ii) Forming and joining organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at international, national, regional and local levels.

Key findings of the Civil Network OPORA based on the results of observation of the 2020 local elections

The Electoral Code of Ukraine, which was adopted in December 2019, stipulates that all regular polling stations should become accessible to voters with disabilities by January 1, 2025. However, according to the results of OPORA’s monitoring campaign, which was conducted in July-August 2020, only 15 out of 500 sampled polling stations were fully accessible to voters (met the requirements of accessibility for people with reduced mobility). 281 polling stations were difficult to access, and 204 turned out to be inaccessible. 

Based on the data obtained by OPORA’s civic ombudsmen through communication with target groups and according to the final report of the OSCE observation mission, we deem it necessary to reconsider the approach that involves automatic application of mobile voting procedure to people with disabilities because it leads to stigmatization of this population group. There is also the problem of providing polling stations with reasonable accommodations for the exercise of electoral rights by people with disabilities (voting, familiarization with election-related information, election observation, participation in the election commissions, etc.)

That’s why it is necessary to determine a transitional period during which voters with disabilities could apply, including online, to the State voter register maintenance body with a request stating their desire to vote at the polling station or at the place of residence, as well as the necessity of equipping the polling station with reasonable accommodations as specified by the applicant. The data contained in the application should be stored in the service part of the State register and carefully analyzed during the electoral process to determine the need for providing specific polling stations with reasonable accommodations, after which this information shall be passed on to the precinct election commissions. As evidenced by the 2020 experience of communication between representatives of the State voter register maintenance body and the working group of the Central Election Commission (CEC), Ukrainians currently have no technical capacity to submit and process such applications. Therefore, relevant mechanisms should be included in the Transitional provisions of the Electoral Code and the Law on State Register of Voters.

Furthermore, it is important to ensure that voters with disabilities have the opportunity to change their voting place from an inaccessible to an accessible (inclusive) polling station when it comes to holding local elections in large cities.

Public opinion on the persons with disabilities as a vulnerable group and ensuring their suffrage rights 

During the period from September 5 to October 7, 2024, Kyiv International Institute of Sociology at the request of Civil Network OPORA carried out a study on issues related to ensuring the suffrage rights of vulnerable population groups in the post-war elections. 

According to the results of this study, 41.4% of respondents believe that persons with disabilities face the largest number of obstacles in terms of exercising the right to vote (active suffrage) in the post-war elections.

When it comes to ways of eliminating these obstacles, 73.1% of respondents believe that the State should contribute to ensuring the electoral rights of vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities, by developing the electoral infrastructure within the country (architectural accessibility of voting premises), while 58.4% are convinced that the State assistance should be provided through the introduction of alternative voting methods (e.g. postal, electronic, etc.)

About half of the respondents (50.4%) deem it appropriate to introduce mandatory quotas (places) for vulnerable groups on the lists of candidates. 51.6% of them believe that persons with disabilities need such quotas most of all. At the same time, 20.3% of respondents share the opinion that there is no need to introduce mandatory quotas for anyone, including the disabled.

As for the main obstacles to participation of the disabled voters in elections, 81% of respondents mentioned architectural barriers on the way to voting premises and election commissions (lack of accessible transport, sound traffic lights, slopes and ramps on the street, etc.). 80.9% of respondents pointed out the architectural barriers to access to voting premises (lack of ramps, elevators, etc.). 79.5% of respondents placed an emphasis on the lack of special accommodations for people with disabilities (tablets for voters with hearing impairments; magnifying glasses, stencils for voters with visual impairments, other reasonable accommodations), and 76.3% drew attention to an inconvenient ballot paper (lack of Braille ballots for the blind and visually challenged people, small print, etc.) 64.4% of respondents believe that poor communicational culture of election commission members and their inability to communicate with the disabled voters represent an obstacle to voting. 2% of respondents identified other obstacles, 1.7% of respondents were undecided, and only 4.8% see no obstacles to participation of persons with disabilities in the post-war elections.

85.7% of respondents believe that it is necessary to provide the disabled voters with additional methods/tools to ensure architectural accessibility of voting premises and routes to them. 82.6% are convinced of the need to put in place special conditions for voters with disabilities (tablets for voters with hearing impairments; magnifying glasses, ballot paper templates for voters with visual impairments, etc.) 72.2% of respondents hold that voters with disabilities should get an opportunity to vote electronically at the polling stations with the help of special technical means, 69.6% support the idea of voting in the “Diia” app, 50.4% – postal voting, 40.9% – voting by proxy, and 2.7% spoke in support of other voting methods for persons with disabilities. Only 2.6% of respondents see no need to introduce additional voting methods/tools for persons with disabilities.

Barrier-free environment

The main challenge encountered in relation to realizing the active suffrage right of people with disabilities is to create a barrier-free environment and eliminate unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right. Barrier-free approach to shaping and implementing the state policy aims to provide all population groups with access to various spheres of life without leaving anyone behind. 

In response to OPORA’s request for information about the risks associated with realization of active and passive suffrage rights of voters with disabilities, the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights noted that

“the results of monitoring activities and analysis of appeals submitted to the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights bring us to the conclusion that people with disabilities are subject to prejudicial treatment and discrimination, and they remain socially invisible.”

Experts emphasize that the issues related to barriers at the polling stations (long queues, separate (segregated) voting booths, high tables in wheelchair-accessible booths, poor lighting, etc.) have remained unsolved since the last elections:

“It’s about physical inaccessibility – no ramps, no toilets for people with disabilities, voting premises on the second floor.”

Unfortunately, infrastructure facilities used as polling stations on election days have been severely damaged due to the full-scale war. This problem was also underscored by the CEC Resolution No. 102 “On Proposals for Improving the Legislation of Ukraine Aimed at Ensuring the Preparation and Conduct of Elections after the Termination or Repeal of Martial Law in Ukraine” dated September 27, 2022.

That’s why it is important not only to rebuild the infrastructure facilities that were destroyed or damaged as a result of Russian military aggression, but also to equip them with accessibility elements: “We have the opportunity to build new facilities from scratch and make them accessible to voters with disabilities instead of rebuilding and reinventing something.” However, according to the interviewed experts, some of the premises that will be used as polling stations in the future are being rebuilt in a haphazard manner, without taking due account of the needs of vulnerable groups and accessibility standards. The problem of obstacles and barriers on the way to polling stations will also remain relevant in the post-war elections.

In the context of a barrier-free environment, not least important is the issue of ensuring physical security of people with disabilities while they are voting, going to the polling station and returning home:

“Security of the election process will be of crucial importance. How safe is it for a person with disability to vote and return home? Such a person is less mobile than others...”

Experts also draw attention to the risks associated with realization of active suffrage rights of Ukrainian citizens with disabilities who went abroad. One of the main problems is that this population group may be under-informed about the mechanisms for exercising the right to elect in the host country.

Electoral infrastructure

Clause 7 of final and transitional provisions of the Electoral Code stipulates the following:  “Executive authorities of village, town, city, district councils, other bodies (officials) that exercise their powers in accordance with the law, shall ensure, within the limits of state and corresponding local budgets, their own revenues and from other sources not prohibited by law, till January 1, 2025, accessibility for persons with disabilities and other low-mobility groups of the premises provided to precinct election commissions of regular election precincts for the organization of their work and carrying out of voting process.”

Obviously, it is impossible to fully implement these provisions, given the current situation in our country. Experts pointed out: “Ukraine has already exceeded the deadline for achieving strategic goals that were set at the beginning of 2020. Based on the turnout of voters with disabilities in the previous elections, we can conclude that a significant portion of them are not ready to overcome such obstacles.”

At the same time, local governments are responsible for the arrangement and preparation of polling stations for voting in the post-war elections:

“In this case, the key role should be assigned to local government authorities for the reason that voting facilities are on their balance sheet. They have the ability to allocate funds for arranging barrier-free access to the extent possible." On the other hand, the central government should take a consistent and uncompromising stand on the issue of ensuring accessibility.

In the context of electoral infrastructure, not least important is the problem of ensuring security at the polling stations:

“...in case of air-raid alarm on election day, people with disabilities will need to leave the premises of polling stations. At present, by no means all polling stations are equipped with civil defense shelters. Getting to such a shelter also poses a challenge to the disabled. Unfortunately, most of these shelters are not adapted to the needs of people with disabilities.”

Alternative voting methods for people with disabilities

Currently, the expert community is discussing various alternative voting methods, the introduction of which would help increase the number of participants (including voters with disabilities) in the post-war election process, and thereby enhance the legitimacy of the elections. However, neither experts nor representatives of civil society organizations dealing with the rights of people with disabilities share a common vision in this regard.

The OSCE Handbook for the Observation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Elections emphasizes that the introduction of various types of ICT can have numerous benefits and contribute to the independent participation of people with disabilities in elections, as provided for in international documents. At the same time, the introduction of technology in an election process can further marginalize people with disabilities if their needs are not taken into account when choosing and developing the tools.

In particular, the interviewed experts pointed to several factors that may prevent people with disabilities from exercising their electoral rights:

  1. Lack of digital skills among persons with disabilities when it comes to the introduction of electronic voting;
  2. Violation of the secrecy of the vote and security rules for transportation of ballots when it comes to voting by mail. It is worth noting individually that there is also the problem of remoteness of some population centers and the company responsible for implementing the postal voting process;
  3. Unwillingness to use the proposed alternatives.

Below are some examples of expert opinions on this issue: 

“If we are talking about alternative voting methods for persons with disabilities (voting at home, electronic or postal voting), we must leave the choice to the people: if there are reasonable grounds for introducing such voting methods. Let’s be honest, these voting methods carry a high risk of abuse...” 

“I am totally against the idea of electronic voting! I see a lot of risks in this voting method. It is necessary to ensure that voters can exercise their right to vote at the place of residence.”

“Alternative voting methods should not be provided for in the electoral law because technology is ever-changing, and a new option may become available as soon as tomorrow. The law should enshrine universal principles: accessibility of polling stations, accessibility of information and accessibility of procedures. Voters with disabilities should be given the opportunity to choose between alternatives, which shall be determined by the resolutions of the CEC.”

That is why voters with disabilities should have the opportunity to choose the most convenient way of voting in person (for example, using the Braille ballot templates, a specialized marker that converts the text of a ballot into spoken audio, e-voting, etc.)

Reasonable accommodations

In the context of the upcoming post-war elections, it is crucial that we enable people with disabilities to vote at the polling stations without the help of third persons: “Voting in person is of fundamental importance to people with disabilities. This demonstrates the level of our country’s readiness to provide such conditions and take due account of the needs of this group of voters.”

On July 25, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ukraine as part of the panel of judges of the Administrative Cassation Court gave a final ruling on the need to provide polling stations with reasonable accommodations (auxiliary means) for people with visual impairments. This case has been under consideration since 2021.

Bohdan Moisa, who is an analyst at the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union and a person with a visual impairment (group I) acting as plaintiff in the court, claimed that he was unable to personally exercise his right to vote in the local elections held on October 25, 2020, due to his health condition, and the only alternative offered to him by members of precinct election commission was to turn to third persons for help.

The plaintiff emphasized that “as a visually impaired person he needs to be provided with auxiliary means for voting, namely the ability to express his will by filling out a ballot without outside help. In the event of failure to do so, he and other visually impaired persons cannot be sure of true expression of their will and adherence to secret ballot principle.”

According to the Supreme Court, “a reasonable accommodation is a decision on means, adjustment or modification that a person with a certain health disorder needs in a particular place for a specific purpose (to ensure equality). In controversial situations, to enable a person with a visual impairment to freely, personally and secretly exercise his/her right to vote in elections on an equal basis with other voters.”

The Supreme Court is convinced: “In order to exercise its powers in so far as they relate to providing reasonable accommodations, the CEC had to determine the following: what adjustments, means or modifications could ensure personal unassisted voting of the group in question; analyze each of these adjustments or modifications and determine whether they meet the requirements for proportionality and justified burden. The CEC had to theoretically assess the possibility of using certain accommodations during the consideration of this case and prove on a practical level that all available auxiliary means for visually impaired persons had been intimately examined by members of the CEC, and that none of them, based on available facts, could be implemented without assuming a disproportionate or unacceptable burden. At the same time, the financial insolvency of the State must be substantiated by appropriate calculations with disclosure of each factor of such calculation. However, the CEC failed to fulfill its obligation, did not determine the list of all available auxiliary means for unassisted voting of visually impaired persons, and did not prove the impossibility of using these means.”

 “...the Court emphasizes the importance of conducting inclusive elections wherein all citizens, including those with disabilities, can exercise their right to vote without any obstacles. The provision of reasonable accommodations in the manner and cases determined by the CEC plays a key role in achieving this goal and ensures that the voting process is equal and accessible to all citizens.” 

“...The obligation of the CEC to determine the procedure for providing reasonable accommodations (auxiliary means) for voting by persons with visual impairments is based on the provisions of part 1 of article 62 of the Electoral Code of Ukraine, according to which the types, cases and procedure for providing reasonable accommodations are defined by the CEC. The form and content of the decision to fulfill this obligation shall be chosen by the CEC, which means that the CEC has the opportunity to decide at its own discretion (independently) how to organize and implement this process, as well as choose and implement specific means within the scope of its powers and competence.”

In addition, “...the Court deems it necessary to point out that, despite the absence of clearly defined time limits in national legislation, the CEC was obliged to do so within a reasonable time. The Electoral Code of Ukraine came into force on January 01, 2020. The first elections (local elections) were held under the provisions of Electoral Code in the fall of 2020. However, the CEC failed to fulfill its obligation prior to the date of local elections. Furthermore, the provisions of article 62 of the Electoral Code remain valid. Therefore, any delay on the part of the defendant (as the relevant body of state authority) in fulfilling the positive obligation of the State to create conditions for exercising the right to personal and secret ballot, which ensures free expression of will for visually impaired persons, leads to non-compliance with the State’s obligations in the field of realization of electoral rights of citizens.”

Thus, the Supreme Court made it clear that the CEC should assess the available reasonable accommodations and the necessary means for implementing them in the elections. 

At the same time, the development of information technology resulted in the creation of alternative forms of reasonable accommodation depending on the needs of a particular group of people with disabilities. For example, instead of producing ballots with Braille overlays, it is now possible to convert relevant text information into audio and listen to it through headphones. Furthermore, reasonable accommodations should be used not only to organize the voting process, but also to provide information support for the elections. In the case of introduction of certain smart devices, members of the election commission may be required to undergo additional training – depending on the complexity of such devices and the skills necessary to use them.

The culture of cooperation between the members of election commissions and voters with disabilities in the process of election administration 

Special attention should be paid to members of election commissions and their inability to communicate with disabled voters in a proper manner. Solution to this problem consists of two main aspects: 1) development of a culture of proper communication between commission members and voters or candidates with disabilities; 2) greater involvement of disabled persons in the work of election commissions.

Separate voting booths for people with disabilities were observed at a number of polling stations during the previous election campaigns, which is a manifestation of discrimination against the disabled voters. In order to avoid this, all voting booths should be equally inclusive.

Some of the interviewed experts underscored that people with disabilities should be appointed to election commissions in the post-war elections. In fact, greater involvement of disabled people in the activities of election commissions will facilitate the development of a proper culture of communication between electoral subjects and help dismantle social stereotypes. 

Training sessions for members of election commissions on how to work with the disabled people also constitute an integral part of inclusive election process. This will help improve the quality of elections, strengthen trust in state institutions and ensure equal rights for citizens. It should be emphasized that the practice of allocating one member of the election commission with relevant skills and competencies is not enough.

Training of election commission members on how to communicate with the disabled people can become part of a general awareness campaign intended for citizens of Ukraine:

“This should be done on a regular basis. Disability is very multifaceted. We are witnessing the crystallization of more complex types of disability... It is important to understand how to address disabled people correctly without offending them, or how to help them if they ask for assistance.”

 “...many people are still using the words ‘invalid’ or ‘cripple’. If you go to the polling station and hear such a phrase, it may discourage you from voting...”

“...as for communicational culture, the fewer obstacles people with disabilities face and the less dependent they are on outside help when exercising their right to vote, the fewer incidents and examples of improper communication we will have...”

Realization of the right to be elected (passive suffrage): main challenges 

Full realization of passive suffrage rights and powers within the voter mandate is equally important for ensuring meaningful political participation of persons with disabilities. According to experts, one of the key problems in this context is the passivity of persons with disabilities caused by numerous physical barriers and obstacles to participation (holding meetings with voters, visiting the headquarters of a political party, etc.) 

Furthermore, Ukrainian society is not ready to see disabled people as candidates:

“Our society has not arrived at the cross-cutting idea that it is important to ensure participation of different social groups in the election process. We shouldn’t diminish the role of physically handicapped persons. We are used to seeing only a pretty picture.” The Soviet stereotype that people with disabilities play a limited role in political processes is still alive: “A person with disabilities is something else... this stereotype has existed since the Soviet times: you’ve been granted minimum social security benefits, so stay at home and keep out of our sight... This stereotype has left an impression on persons with disabilities. Some of them believe that Ukrainian society assigned a purely decorative role to them...”

Even those disabled persons who were elected to the bodies of state authority by no means always have the opportunity to fulfill their duties due to various obstacles. For example, a deputy of local council, who is a wheelchair user, filed a complaint to the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner about violation of his right to exercise his powers within the deputy mandate in so far as they relate to direct participation in plenary sessions and decision-making process due to inaccessibility of the session hall of local council. Despite the fact that this body of local self-government adopted a decision to determine an alternative (accessible) venue of the council meetings, the sessions are still being held in an inaccessible place, which limits the right of persons with disabilities representing local hromada to participate in decision-making.”

According to experts, political parties that provide support for realization of passive suffrage rights can use the issue of people with disabilities to their advantage:

“Cases of manipulation have already been observed in the 2020 local elections. Political parties involved female candidates with disabilities in the electoral process to comply with gender quota requirement.”

As can be seen in the political process of today, there is also a risk that political parties will recruit new members exclusively from among war veterans and leave all the other people with disabilities out of the picture.

Another problem related to involvement of candidates with disabilities in the political and electoral processes is that inclusion, accessibility and protection of the rights of disabled people is the only area of work that will be assigned to them after winning the election. Political parties rarely pay attention to professional qualities and core activities of such candidates. 

Finally, it is extremely important that civil society not only develops cooperation with local self-governing authorities and supports active people with disabilities at the grassroots level, but also works together with political parties to ensure information accessibility during the election campaign (audio, visual, subtitled information perception, translation into sign language, etc.)

Supportive measures (introduction of quotas for people with disabilities, etc.)

According to the majority of interviewed experts, the culture of involvement of disabled persons in the activities of political parties is rather poor. Persons with disabilities are mostly used for political PR or mercenary purposes in pursuance of party’s short-term interests, such as attracting new voters. 

Experts are divergent on the question about making reservations or allocating quotas for disabled persons on the lists of candidates for election to parliament or local councils. Some experts vehemently oppose the idea of implementing such measures of state support. They believe that allocation of quotas violates the principle of equality:

“No one forbade people with disabilities to participate in elections. Moreover, from what I heard during conversations with the leaders of CSOs, disabled persons have no desire to run in the elections. Imposition of mandatory quota for disabled persons will necessitate the need to allocate similar quotas for other population groups (IDPs, war veterans, youth, Chernobyl survivors, etc.) in the future.” 

Others hold the opinion that it is possible to implement such measures at the initial stage:

“Allocation of quotas may be considered as an option to support persons with disabilities at the early stages, but it creates the risk of manipulation of the topic of disability by political parties”. “The idea of introducing quotas for persons with disabilities is viable, but we need to be careful so as to avoid the risk of replication of the practice of employing persons with disabilities simply to comply with the quota of 4%”. “Perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce some kind of quota to encourage people to enter politics, but we should proceed with great caution.”

Finally, some experts believe that people with disabilities would be tempted to make money from their nomination for election in the event of introduction of disabled quota, i.e. they will be ready to “sell their candidacy” to political parties striving to comply with the mandatory quota requirements.

Key conclusions:

  1. Enforcement of active and passive suffrage rights of persons with disabilities is a complex problem that calls for a broad range of measures (architectural accessibility of polling stations and routes to them, reasonable accommodations for voting, convenient format and variability of ballots, etc.)
  2. In post-war elections, it is important to ensure that persons with disabilities can vote in person at the polling stations without the help of third persons. 
  3. Russian military aggression makes it impossible to implement clause 7 of final and transitional provisions of the Electoral Code, which stipulates the following:  “Executive authorities of village, town, city, district councils, other bodies (officials) that exercise their powers in accordance with the law, shall ensure, within the limits of state and corresponding local budgets, their own revenues and from other sources not prohibited by law, till January 1, 2025, accessibility for persons with disabilities and other low-mobility groups of the premises provided to precinct election commissions of regular election precincts for the organization of their work and carrying out of voting process.”
  4. Introduction of alternative voting methods for persons with disabilities carries a number of risks. In this context, it is important for people with disabilities to be able to choose the most convenient way of voting in person.
  5. The government should make provision for financing the purchase of reasonable accommodations in the post-war elections. At the same time, the procedure for using such accommodations should be established by resolutions (acts) of the CEC. It is also important that the voters and members of election commissions receive training on how to use such accommodations.
  6. There is a need to develop the culture of cooperation between the members of election commissions and voters with disabilities in the process of election administration.  
  7. Allocation of quotas for persons with disabilities may be considered as a possible option to support them at the early stages. However, this option carries the risk of manipulation of the topic of disability by political parties and replication of the practice of employing persons with disabilities, when employers are looking for employees to comply with the legally established 4% quota as a mere formality, but in reality disabled people do not come to work. There is also a risk that people with disabilities may be tempted to receive material or non-material benefits in exchange for running in elections, as well as a potential risk of disproportionality between the quota and the number of people willing to participate in political processes.
  8. Introduction of mandatory quotas for people with disabilities may necessitate the need to allocate quotas to other population groups (IDPs, war veterans, youth, Chernobyl survivors, etc.) in the future.
  9. Awareness-raising efforts and training for people with disabilities should be carried out to increase their involvement in political processes in general and in the electoral process in particular.

Recommendations:

To the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine:

  • Enshrine the fundamental principles of inclusivity in national laws on political parties and elections.
  • Adopt amendments to transitional provisions of the Electoral Code and the Law on the State Register of Voters to ensure that voters with disabilities can file applications with the State voter register maintenance body during the inter-election period, including by means of the submission of online applications stating their desire to vote at an accessible polling station or at the place of residence, as well as the necessity of equipping the polling station with reasonable accommodations as specified by the applicant. The data contained in the application should be stored in the service part of the State register and carefully analyzed during the election process to determine the need for providing specific polling stations with reasonable accommodations, after which this information shall be passed on to the precinct election commissions. The procedure for changing the place of voting in local elections is also relevant to the disabled residents of large cities, and they can also use it to change their voting place from an inaccessible to an accessible (inclusive) polling station. 

To the Cabinet of Ministers:

  • Allocate funds for the purchase of reasonable accommodations in the post-war elections.

To the Central Election Commission:

  • Activate the working group and develop amendments to the legislation as part of the implementation of the Flagship project “Improving election accessibility for people with disabilities”.
  • Develop a procedure for providing reasonable accommodations (auxiliary means) for expression of the will (voting) of people with disabilities, as well as organize training sessions for voters and members of election commissions so that they can learn how to use such accommodations.
  • Consolidate data from the regions on the accessibility of polling stations and publish information on the accessibility of specific polling stations after the repeal of martial law;
  • Conduct training sessions for members of election commissions on proper communication and interaction with disabled voters.
  • Take due account of disability-specific features in the process of development of document forms, including those intended for registration of candidates.
  • Ensure that persons with disabilities have the opportunity to consult an expert in election law via the Ministry of Social Policy hotline “1539”, which is intended for counseling of people with disabilities during the election process, especially on Election Day.
  • Work together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to develop a plan (algorithm) of action for persons with disabilities living abroad in so far as it relates to exercising the right to vote.

To local self-governing authorities:

  • Adopt and implement the barrier-free programs with a focus on accessibility of electoral infrastructure, carry out communications on the issue of accessibility of polling stations.

To political parties:

  • Facilitate the appointment of representatives of the disabled community to election commissions.
  • To civil society institutions:
  • Work closely with local self-government authorities to ensure civilian oversight and control over the accessibility of polling stations.

Disclaimer

This research is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of Civil Network OPORA and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.