Disability Voting News: December 10, 2025

Welcome to the last Accessible Voting Booth of 2025! I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving holiday and that your December is off to a good start. This week, we’re talking about a lawsuit brought by disabled voters and the NAACP in South Carolina regarding the state’s restrictions on voter assistance, a Georgia appeals court’s reinstatement of the ban on offering food and water to voters in line, as well as a proposed constitutional amendment to protect universal vote by mail in Nevada. 

S.C. NAACP and Disabled Voters Challenge Restrictions on Voter Assistance (via ACLU). 

The NAACP South Carolina State Conference and American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on December 5 along with disabled South Carolinians challenging the state’s limits on voting assistance, arguing that those limits violate Section 208 of the federal Voting Rights Act. Section 208 states that:

“Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”

However, South Carolina places several restrictions on voting assistance that conflict with Section 208:

1. South Carolina limits voters who may receive assistance to “those voters who are unable to read or write or who are physically unable or incapacitated from preparing a ballot or voting.” This is a narrower definition than the Voting Rights Act, which permits assistance to anyone by reason of “blindness, disability, or inability to read or write,” which means that some groups of voters with disabilities are not included. The plaintiffs argue that “voters with non-physical disabilities and voters with physical disabilities that do not render them incapacitated are denied their federal right to assistance when voting.” 
2. South Carolina limits assistors to immediate family members or “authorized representatives.” Authorized representatives must be registered to vote in South Carolina and cannot be “a candidate, a member of a candidate’s paid campaign staff, or a campaign volunteer.” I’m most concerned about the first restriction: those who need assistance can only ask a registered voter to assist them to vote if their helper is not an immediate family member. This means that they may be restricted from getting assistance from a person they trust if that person is not a registered South Carolina voter.
3. South Carolina makes it a felony to assist more than five voters by requesting and returning an absentee ballot. The plaintiffs point out that this provision is most concerning for disabled residents of nursing homes or other congregate care facilities who may rely on facility staff to help them obtain, mark, and return their ballots. 

South Carolina is not the only state to impose restrictions on both who can assist voters with disabilities, who can receive assistance, and how many voters someone is permitted to assist. For example, in Louisiana, only an immediate family member is permitted to return a marked ballot on a voter’s behalf, and only immediate family members and election staff are allowed to assist more than one voter in completing their absentee ballot. No exception seems to be made for voters with disabilities for these two laws that took effect in Louisiana in 2024.

And these restrictions don’t just exist in red states: in Connecticut, only an immediate family member or caregiver may assist voters with an absentee ballot application or absentee ballot, and if they aren’t available, only a police officer, registrar of voters, or assistant or deputy registrar of voters in the town in which a voter lives may assist the voter. Additionally, many states have restrictions preventing a candidate or member of a candidate’s family from providing assistance to a voter. This is a well-meaning provision that is intended to ensure that a voter cannot be coerced into voting for that candidate. However, as pointed out in the lawsuit, it is technically in violation of federal law when applied to voters with disabilities.

It’ll be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out as attempts to limit voter assistance increase. The implications for this lawsuit extend beyond South Carolina and could call into question voter assistance restrictions in other states as well. 

Georgia court reinstates ban on providing food and water to voters in line (via The Markup). 

A Georgia appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision that struck down provisions from SB 202 that prohibited offering food or water to voters waiting in line at the polling place. Those who do provide food and water face a criminal penalty.

Being able to offer food and water to people in line at polling places (without facing a fine) is a disability rights issue. From staying hydrated to regulating blood sugar, people have many reasons for potentially needing food and water, and they may not have anticipated those needs, especially if they encounter extremely long lines at polling places. 

Georgia is notorious for having long lines at polling places. Nine of Georgia’s counties have nearly half of the state’s active voters but only 38% of polling places, and polling places in those counties are particularly hit by long lines, especially as Georgia has reduced the number of polling places over time. These long lines disproportionately impact Black voters. As reported by NPR:

“...the lines to vote have been longer in Black areas, because Black voters are more likely than whites to cast their ballots in person on Election Day and are more reluctant to vote by mail, according to U.S. census data and recent studies. Georgia Public Broadcasting/ProPublica found that about two-thirds of the polling places that had to stay open late for the June primary to accommodate waiting voters were in majority-Black neighborhoods, even though they made up only about one-third of the state's polling places. An analysis by Stanford University political science professor Jonathan Rodden of the data collected by Georgia Public Broadcasting/ProPublica found that the average wait time after 7 p.m. across Georgia was 51 minutes in polling places that were 90% or more nonwhite, but only six minutes in polling places that were 90% white.”

Georgia Republicans including Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger argue that this ban “shield[s] voters from influence and interference at the polls.” But being able to offer food and water to voters without being fined isn’t coercion, it’s a disability rights issue and a safety issue. The ACLU of Georgia will continue to fight to overturn this ban. 

Nevada lawmakers advance constitutional amendment to add universal mail-in ballots to state constitution (via The Markup).

Voting Rights Lab’s The Markup reported that Nevada legislators approved a resolution to enshrine the state’s universal mail-in voting system in the state constitution. For this resolution to appear on the 2028 general election ballot, legislators must approve the resolution again during the 2027 session, so there’s a long road ahead for this ballot measure to even be considered by the state’s voters, but this resolution is good news, especially when some states have gone in the opposite direction in 2025, ending universal mail-in voting. 

In March of this year, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed a bill into law that phases out the state’s universal mail-in voting system. Starting in 2029, Utah voters will have to opt in to receive a mail-in ballot, instead of automatically receiving one before an election. While Utah was the first state to phase out universal mail-in voting, other states are looking to follow suit. As I reported in the November 26th issue of this newsletter, Arizona Republicans have pre-filed a proposed ballot measure that includes several provisions, including abolishing the state’s active early-voter list. I previously reported that the Hawaii Elections Commission has recommended ending the state’s entire vote by mail system–not just universal mail voting, but requiring voters to vote in person. With Republicans’ all-out attacks on the validity of mail-in voting, these updates aren’t surprising, and I’m sure we’ll see the attacks on vote by mail intensify in 2026 both from the President and Republican lawmakers. I’m glad to see Nevada’s legislature taking steps to protect mail-in voting at a time when other states are moving to restrict it. 

That's it for 2025! I'll see you in the new year. As always, if you’d like to support the newsletter and my work, here’s how:

• Subscribe to the Accessible Voting Booth newsletter.
• Share this newsletter with your network to spread the word about disability voting rights.
• Leave me a tip. Thank you for supporting my work!