Why use iPads for disabled voters?

It was all over the news this week: Oregon's Secretary of State is piloting the use of IPads to make it easier for disabled people to vote.

I don't get it.

In the pilot test, they spent $75K to develop the application for the IPad. They have to get the IPad to the disabled voter, who then apparently is able to use the touch screen to perform the act of voting. Then they use a mobile printer (which they also apparently bring to the voter) to print the ballot and then mail it in like a regular ballot.

Am I alone in wondering just what it is about this whole routine that makes voting more accessible to disabled people?

What kind of disabilities make it difficult for a person to fill out and send a vote-by-mail ballot, but able to use a touch screen, remove paper from a printer, put it in an envelope and pop it in the mail? Am I missing something?

So what is the system here, assuming that they declare this pilot test a success and then take it statewide like they say they will? Every disabled person has home delivery of an IPad and the special printer? Will they have to figure the software and the printer out by themselves, or will a helpful election official visit the home to assist?

How does that make sense? If we are going to send officials into homes to assist in IPad voting, wouldn't it just be simpler to have these folks just fill in the bubbles on the vote-by-mail ballot for them at their instruction?

One of the few really good things about vote-by-mail is that it DOES make it easier for disabled people to vote. All they really need is a trusted non-disabled person to assist them with whatever it is their disability prevents them from doing.

It is completely unclear how using an IPad makes it easier to vote for people whose disabilities run the gamut from blindness, paraplegia, quadraplegia, or illness.

Maybe someone can enlighten me, but from my perspective this looks like just another wasteful attempt for a politician to make headlines, assisted by a totally credulous press.
Posted by Rob Kremer

The Urban Renewal Trough

Urban Renewal District abuse is rampant in metro-area cities and counties. What was originally conceived of as a tool to revamp blighted areas has mutated into a politician wish-list granting slush fund, and a crony-capitalist feeding trough.

Example: the Oregon City urban renewal district, created in the early 2000's.

A SINGLE consulting firm, Leland Consulting Group, has been paid more than $1.2 million dollars since 2004 just from this single urban renewal district.

I'm sure that the public got terrific value for all the Smart Growth planning services the Leland Group provided for the taxpayers.

Take a look at the list of the checks Leland Group has received. It's time our electeds start being held accountable for this kind of waste and cronyism.

Posted by Rob Kremer

This Week on Kremer & Abrams

Tuesday is Election Day! 

Rob and Marc will be discussing what it means if Washington state ends its liquor monopoly, how the general election sets up for the First Congressional District, and what the land use votes in Clackamas County could mean for the whole area.  What's the latest with Occupy Portland?  And another police chief for Portland Mayor?

Tune in and get the take from the Left and Right on Kremer & Abrams!