The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by a 2-1 margin, has ruled that the United States discriminates against the blind and visually impaired because our paper currency is all the same size regardless of a bill’s denomination.
I think this — the ruling, not the discrimination! — is a good ruling for a couple of reasons.
First, while I haven’t yet had any trouble distinguishing between a $20 and a $50, I do need my reading glasses for most tasks. It’s just a matter of time until I’ll need some help paying properly.
Secondly, my mother is one of those affected. She has macular degeneration and I already worry about her physical and financial well-being. Anything that helps her (and, by association, me) cope a bit better with her vision limits, especially as they affect her pocketbook, is all good in my book.
In writing for the panel, Judge Judith W. Rogers noted that "a large majority of other currency systems have accommodated the visually impaired, and the [Treasury Department] secretary does not explain why U.S. currency should be any different."
Some of those currency accommodations include different predominant colors (for those with limited sight) and different shapes and special tactile features for different denominations to help the blind differentiate between bills. The New York Times graphic below — and yes, it’s a bit blurry because it was scanned; for some reason, the paper didn’t provide an online version of the image to which I could direct you — shows some of those designs.
The U.S. already has added tinges of color to various bills (blogged about here) and the latest version of the $5 bill that was released this year has an extra-large numeral five on one side.
If the Treasury Department asks the full 13-member D.C. appeals court to review the case, it could get even more interesting. One of those judges, David S. Tatel, is blind. The Department also could opt instead to seek quick review by the Supreme Court, some of whose members are thought by many to be figuratively blind when it comes to various legal issues.
You can read the full NYTimes story on the ruling here. Other coverage comes from the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and, from the UK, Anorak, as well as bloggers Curmudgeon’s Weblog and FindLaw’s Common Law.
