Judge: Make Bills Recognizable to Blind

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/28/D8LMC4600.html

The government discriminates against blind people by printing money that all looks and feels the same, a federal judge said Tuesday in a ruling that could change the face of American currency.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the Treasury Department to come up with ways for the blind to tell bills apart. He said he wouldn't tell officials how to fix the problem, but he ordered them to begin working on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Simple sollution add the denomination in braile to the note.

De Orc :kewl:

 

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the Treasury Department to come up with ways for the blind to tell bills apart. He said he wouldn't tell officials how to fix the problem, but he ordered them to begin working on it."
Ah, another case where justice wants change (judiciating law) but won't tell them how to do it.
That is becuase he, the judge, is clueless about how to do it!
Nice: "ah, ya gotta change this. No, I have no idea how, but ya gotta do it."
Perhaps justice IS blind, or in this case dumb?

 

It is very doubtful that Judge Robertson has any expertise in the printing process. If he were to order the BEP to fix the problem a certain way, there would instantly be a huge outcry from real experts that there was some other way to do it that would be more effective and cheaper.

As a judge his job is to interpret the law, and looking at the language Congress and the President agreed upon in the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") he has determined that the inability of the blind to distinguish between $1 and $100 bills doesn't comply with that language. Now the BEP and its experts must figure out the most economical way to come into compliance, and Judge Robertson will analyze that solution and approve or disapprove it on the basis of complaince, not cost.

De Orc's solution would certainly work, if the paper used for currency will take a permanent braille impression and continue to stack properly without smoothing that impression out.

Use of different size bills for different denominations would certainly work, but at what cost to, among others:

• taxpayers for new printing presses and related equipment
• banks and retailers for new cash register drawers
• vending machine manufacturers and users for new bill reading equipment.

Under our system of government it is the job of the legislature to make policy decisions, and the executive branch to implement those decisions. The judiciary has a two-part job, first determining whether the legislative decisions comply with consititutional requirements, then whether the executive's implementation method complies with the legislative mandate.

Judge Robertson is doing his job, and unless his decision is reversed on appeal (extremely unlikely based on recent ADA decisions of the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court) it will be up to the BEP to do its job and determine the best way to comply with the ADA after considering the state of the printing art, the economic aspects, and anything else it deems appropriate.

My own solution would be to leave the $100 alone, clipp one corner on the $50, two corners on the $20, three corners on the $10 and all four corners on the $5; and ask Congress for authority to dump the $1 bill. That would require minimal new equipment at the BEP and at the same time avoid the need for new cash drawers and vending machine readers. Since extra clips would reduce the apparent value it would also prevent scam artists from changing a blind person's perception of any particular bill's value.

 

I heard about this ruling. And I also heard that the U.S. is the only country that still has identical sized bills. I see no problem with the judges ruling. And I like Satootoko's solution, except for the dumping the $1 part. I don't think we're ready for that yet.

 

This will be appealed. A District judge doesn't have the authority to order a Federal agency to do anything. A District judge's writ runs only as far as his district. His ruling, however interesting it may be to other judges in other districts, isn't even precedent outside of his district. It happens in lawsuits against the military all the time. Quite simply, for this to be enforced (unless the Treasury chooses not to challenge it), it will have to end up before the Supreme Court.

 

phew!
The government just saved $3,000,000,000,000 for that focus group and study.

 

simply make the bills a different size...problem solved. and keep the 1 dollar bill, there is a real need for 1 dollar bills.

 

Making notes a different size does not require new printing presses, just new plates which have to be replaced on a regular basis as they wear out anyway. The only real change required would be resetting of the overprinting equipment and the cutting equipment every time a different denomination was printed. Currently they only have to set it once and then it works for all denominations.

Switching to different sizes whould be a great hardship on everyone else though because it WOULD require a big investment in new equipment.

Frankly equipment that could impress braille or some embossed features on the notes would probably be the easiest and cheapest method. But it has the problem that in use the embossing will fade. The question would be how much wear can a note withstand before the embossing is no longer tactile?

 

I don't know this first hand, but on the radio this morning, someone said that in Canada, the ink for the numbers on one part of the bill is raised. That sounds like a possibility too. Any Canadian members care to comment?

 

"Switching to different sizes whould be a great hardship on everyone else though because it WOULD require a big investment in new equipment."

Oh no, here goes that $3,000,000,000,000 for that focus group and study.

 

Simple solution #2 make the notes out of polymer with a braile value, yes you will hve to invest in new technology but just think how much longer the notes will last :smile

De Orc :kewl:

 

IMHO I see too many problems with the braille notes. Crooks could add or remove the raised dots.

 

Crooks for the past 145 years could also be handing blind people one denomination and telling them it is something else. Doesn't happen a lot but I'm sure it does happen. And if crooks tried to make money by adding or removing the raised dots, the only people that would work with would be someone who is blind. Not really a large enough victim base to make it worthwhile. Think about it. Pretend you are a crook and you want to take advantage of making money by altering the dots. First you have to get equipment to alter the notes, now you have to pass them. Quick, how many blind people do you know? That many! Now how do get them to take your notes, and how many can you give them? Are they merchants? I don't know too many blind merchants but I'm sure there are some. But how many can you pass before they learn what you are doing? Maybe they can be customers from you! That way you might be able to get away with it longer because they won't know where they got the bad notes. Disadvantage, once they do they know where to find you.

No, I really don't see too much danger of dot altering.

 

I think that you might be very suprised by just how sensitive some blind people are, I knew one who could tell me what denomination coin I handed him 99% of the time & I am talking about modern european coinage not just GB (prior to the Euro)

De Orc

 

Canada now uses a Braille recognition code for its banknotes.Perhaps the Americans can take a few pages from the Bank of Canada's book.

It would be cool if America changed from paper to polymer plastic for its banknotes.Most countries have had at least 1 plastic banknote.

Aidan.

 

sheesh...we have them in canada..heres a link for ya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_currency_tactile_feature

 

Twiggs,do you reckon that Canada will ever change over to polymer plastic for their banknotes? I certainly miss the old paper notes (of the pre-1992 design,that is!) from over here in New Zealand,especially the brown $1 & the purple $2 notes.

Aidan.

 

No idea where you heard that. I have currency from several different countries where all the denominations are the same size, or almost the same size. Having different denominations being different sizes seems to be the exception rather than the rule as far as I can tell, might be wrong on that. I am sure however that the US is not the only country that prints all denominations the same size (or pretty close to the same size).

I do. A district court does not have authority over a federal agency (as pointed out by KLJ). Pretty much the only way this will end up being enforced is if the case goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upholds it (probably won't in all likelihood... the Treasury could make a very good argument about this being past the boundry of "reasonable accomadation" the ADA calls for. The standard isn't whether or not it's discriminatory to the blind; the standard is whether make the bills easier to tell apart for blind people constitutes a reasonable accomadation or not. For example, it's not against the law to refuse to hire parapalegics to climb telephone poles, as a reasonable accomadation to allow them to perform the job can not be made.)

I honestly doubt the $1 bill will be eliminated in my lifetime lol... it has too much stubborn support despite sound arguments for getting rid of it.

Actually it seems very likely that he is exceeding his jurisdiction with his ruling, and his ruling could very easily be overturned on those grounds alone. And as I pointed out earlier, it is not enough to prove that blind people not being able to tell the bills apart is descriminatory; it has to be proven that a change in the bills constitutes a reasonable accomadation. Both points could easily get this overturned. (Likely on the first point rather than the second, however even if it doesn't get overturned on jurisdictional grounds, the Treasury can easily make the case that the cost and technical complexity for making the bills distinguishable for blind people far exceeds the standard for reasonable accomadation.)

 

I'd sure love to see your authority for those statements, as they do not comport with my experience practicing in federal court since 1965. (BTW I was admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court in 1971.)