Atty letter (on behalf of no one) claims AutoMARK is not accessible...

John McDermott, the attorney that represented the AAPD in their unsuccessful attempt to nullify, California's former Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley's decertification order for some DREs last year, is apparently sending threatening letters to California jurisdictions to warn against the use of the AutoMARK ballot marking device (via Randy Riddle, "Attorney threatens election officials over use of AutoMARK voting system").

McDermott claims, like others have, that the unit is not accessible to people with manual dexterity disablities. Curiously, McDermott doesn't say who he's representing. I've mentioned before that this neglects the addition of a privacy sleeve ("The Automark is accessible... no matter what Jim Dixon says"). However, I took the liberty to call Mr. McDermott and he said he was aware of this (and not much more).

There is a spectrum of accessibility and disability; niether are ever black and white such that a piece of technology is 100% accessible or someone 100% disabled. It will always be possible for some disabled constituency to claim that a device is not accessible... for example, does a person who is unable to hear or see have to be accomodated under HAVA? No. In fact, as Riddle points out, that's exactly what the DoJ says:

Last year Mr. McDermott made similar arguments in unsuccessfully challenging the Secretary of State's DRE decertification orders, and the letter indicates that the Secretary of State rejected his arguments in certifying the system. Mr. McDermott's absolutest view of HAVA also appear at odds with an opinion from the United States Department of Justice interpreting the accessibility provisions of HAVA.