In a deeply troubling incident that has ignited public outrage, Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) candidate Holly Ann Bristol—a wheelchair user—was unable to cast her vote this morning due to inaccessibility at her assigned polling station.
Ms. Bristol, who arrived at the location around 9:20 a.m., found that her polling station was located on the upper floor of a building with no ramps or elevators, making it physically impossible for her to reach. As of 11:20 a.m., the FGM candidate—who has been vocal about inclusivity throughout her campaign—was still waiting to vote, highlighting yet another painful instance of systemic failure for people living with disabilities.
In a shocking response, officials from the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) reportedly suggested that two staff members could carry Ms. Bristol up the staircase. She rightfully declined the offer, citing serious safety concerns, calling the recommendation both unsafe and undignified.
A Returning Officer on-site indicated that the matter was escalated to GECOM’s Chief Elections Officer, who confirmed that no alternative accommodation could be provided beyond the unsafe lifting option. GECOM’s failure to plan for accessibility not only contravenes basic principles of inclusion but raises serious legal and ethical questions about the Commission’s preparedness and sensitivity to the needs of all voters.
At the time of writing, Village Voice News has been informed that the FGM team is actively seeking ways to ensure Ms. Bristol can access the polling station and cast her vote—though no viable solution had yet been offered by GECOM.
This incident underscores a broader issue: the structural insensitivity of GECOM in ensuring that polling stations are accessible to persons with disabilities. The right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution, and denying that right through physical inaccessibility is nothing short of discrimination. GECOM’s failure to accommodate a candidate—someone seeking public office—is even more disturbing, setting a grim precedent for ordinary voters with mobility challenges.
The situation has sparked criticism from disability advocates and civil society organisations, who argue that this reflects a deeper institutional neglect. One observer noted, “If a candidate can be denied her right to vote with dignity, imagine what ordinary citizens face.”
With election day already underway, this incident serves as a stark reminder that democracy cannot be truly free and fair unless it is accessible to all. GECOM’s inaction has not only put a candidate in an impossible position but has also tarnished the credibility of the electoral process.
Ms. Bristol’s courage in standing her ground should serve as a call to action—for GECOM, for policymakers, and for a country that claims to value equality. The question now remains: Will GECOM rise to the occasion, or will it continue to fail the very people it is meant to serve?
