As many folks have noted today (including CNN), a federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people. Specifically, Judge James Robertson, in a ruling on a suit by the American Council of the Blind, ordered the Treasury to devise a method to tell bills apart, as the current configuration of paper money violates the Rehabilitation Act’s guarantee of “meaningful access.” The American Council for the Blind has submitted several alternatives, including embossing, holes punched in the paper or using different-sized bills for different denominations.
A few comments.
First, this doesn’t mean we’ll have “monopoly money”, for simply using different colors makes no difference to someone who is blind. After all, if they could see the bill in the first place, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Different size currency, in my opinion, is problematic. First, unless the size is significantly different, it is still different to tell apart. Secondly, it would have too much of an impact on industry, for it will break every cash register and bill accepter out there.
With respect to paper money, embossing or punching holes is the only real practical solution. After all, they currently do real engraved printing (you can feel the difference), so embossing could be done on the bill paper. It would also enable all current readers and drawers to work. However, it doesn’t nothing for all the money currently in circulation.
The long term answer, if you are going to have money in circulation at all (i.e., non-electronic) is coins. They are cheaper, over the long run, and last longer. However, given the reluctance to accept a $1 coin, would a $5, $10, $20, and $100 coin actually be successful?
