INDUSTRY REPORT
Digital Accessibility in U.S. State Government Websites: A Benchmark Report
An Evaluation of 50 State Government Websites Against WCAG 2.2 Standards Prepared: July 2025
Executive Summary
Equitable access to public services depends on accessible digital platforms. Our audit of all 50 official U.S. state government homepages against WCAG 2.2 Level AA highlights both the scale of the challenge and the opportunity ahead.
While no state homepage achieved full conformance, several states demonstrated strong foundations and promising practices in areas such as semantic coding, readability, and clear navigation. These leaders, including Kentucky, South Carolina, and Minnesota, set valuable benchmarks for others to follow, proving that accessible, legally defensible, and user-friendly state websites are within reach.
Importantly, 57% of the issues identified across all 50 states are considered “quick wins” that can often be resolved with minor updates such as adding alternative text to images, labeling form inputs, or adjusting color contrast. Fixes like these can transform the experience for millions of citizens who rely on assistive technology, while improving usability for everyone.
Our findings underscore three key points:
Every state has room to grow, but many already show encouraging progress.
Accessibility isn’t about perfection, it’s about steady, sustainable improvement.
Meaningful change is within reach today.
This report provides a clear picture of where state websites stand, what barriers matter most, and how small steps can create big impacts. With 2026 DOJ Title II deadlines approaching, states that take action now can demonstrate leadership, safeguard compliance, and most importantly ensure that every resident has equal access to essential public services online.
Key Findings
0% of state website homepages passed WCAG 2.2 Level AA.
No region achieved consistent accessibility.
The top three issues are low contrast text, missing alternative text, and unlabeled form inputs.
The readability level was too advanced on 72% of sites.
An estimated 57% of errors are easily fixable by making minor updates.
DISCLAIMER
This report provides a benchmark overview of U.S. state government website homepages based on automated scans conducted in July 2025. Results reflect accessibility issues detectable by technology at the time of testing and are intended for informational purposes only. They should not be interpreted as a definitive statement of legal compliance.
See Methodology & Scope for full details.
Top 20 Accessible State Websites
While no state homepage achieved full WCAG 2.2 Level AA compliance, some performed significantly better than others. This table highlights the top 20 performers, offering a baseline for other states to benchmark against.
| Rank | State | A errors | AA errors | AAA errors | Readability |
| 1 | Kentucky | 1 | 0 | 1 | Easy |
| 2 | South Carolina | 2 | 0 | 0 | Intermediate |
| 3 | Ohio | 2 | 3 | 0 | Advanced |
| 4 | Georgia | 5 | 0 | 2 | Advanced |
| 5 | Colorado | 1 | 3 | 5 | Advanced |
| 6 | Minnesota | 7 | 0 | 1 | Intermediate |
| 7 | Iowa | 4 | 1 | 6 | Advanced |
| 8 | Alabama | 10 | 0 | 1 | Advanced |
| 9 | Texas | 9 | 5 | 10 | Advanced |
| 10 | Massachusetts | 3 | 1 | 16 | Advanced |
| 11 | West Virginia | 11 | 2 | 14 | Advanced |
| 12 | Arizona | 6 | 12 | 10 | Advanced |
| 13 | Florida | 22 | 4 | 3 | Advanced |
| 14 | Michigan | 30 | 2 | 38 | Advanced |
| 15 | Hawaii | 5 | 14 | 49 | Advanced |
| 16 | New Hampshire | 28 | 1 | 5 | Advanced |
| 17 | Maine | 26 | 2 | 47 | Advanced |
| 18 | Idaho | 16 | 4 | 56 | Advanced |
| 19 | Indiana | 38 | 4 | 75 | Intermediate |
| 20 | Alaska | 12 | 7 | 24 | Intermediate |
Note: These rankings have been established by combining counts across Level A/AA/AAA issues with readability level. Readability level is assessed using the following criteria:
Easy: Equivalent to Grade 5–6, uses short sentences and common vocabulary. Accessible to children and adults with lower literacy levels
Intermediate: Equivalent to Grades 8–10, uses text with moderate complexity, longer sentences, and varied word choice. Understandable for most U.S. adults, but may require focus.
Advanced: Equivalent to Grade 12 and beyond, incorporating more complex sentence structure, advanced vocabulary, and abstract concepts. Best suited for readers with strong literacy skills.
Download the Report to keep on your device
Key Observations
Our audit revealed recurring accessibility barriers that represent systemic obstacles to civic participation. In other words, the digital front doors to government service delivery remain partially closed to millions of users with disabilities. Here is an overview of the key trends we uncovered.
1. Accessibility is inconsistent across regions
While some individual states performed relatively well, states from every region appeared both at the top and bottom of the rankings, indicating that accessibility success is not driven by geography, size, or budget, but by priority and execution. Even within individual states, variations between the homepage and associated portals (e.g., governor’s office, public services directory) suggest a lack of centralized accessibility governance.2. Few states demonstrate accessibility leadership
While no site achieved full WCAG 2.2 Level AA compliance, a small group of states—including Kentucky, South Carolina, and Minnesota—show evidence of proactive accessibility efforts, such as improved semantic HTML structures (code that helps assistive technologies understand content roles and structure), readable content, and clearer navigation paths. These states provide a valuable benchmark for others looking to close the digital equity gap.3. Most issues are low-hanging fruit
A substantial 57% of the issues flagged in our audit are easily fixable with basic accessibility training and oversight. Examples include adding image descriptions and adjusting color contrast. While issues like this may seem small, they have an outsized impact on users who rely on assistive technologies. The upside of this is that while a significant number of state websites may be unusable for many website visitors right now, meaningful progress is well within reach.4. Reading level is a silent barrier
Accessibility isn’t just about code. It’s also about comprehension. 72% of websites presented content at an advanced reading level, often requiring the equivalent of a 12th-grade education or higher. This poses a significant barrier for citizens with lower literacy, cognitive disabilities, or those for whom English is not a first language.
Compliance Breakdown
We completed our audit based on WCAG 2.2 criteria to provide the most current and forward-looking evaluation, based on the following reasoning:
1
If states receive federal funding or are tied to federal programs, they are subject to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 currently references WCAG 2.0 AA conformance, but an update to WCAG 2.2 AA is under active consideration.
2
All state entities are also bound by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II. The DOJ’s latest guidance strongly recommends WCAG 2.1 AA, and WCAG 2.2 is seen as best practice.
3
Many accessibility lawsuits and enforcement actions reference WCAG 2.2, as these reflect the most up-to-date web design patterns and emerging user needs.
| Compliance Level | Number of States | % of Total |
| A | 0 | 0 |
| AA | 0 | 0 |
| AAA | 0 | 0 |
| Non-Compliant | 50 | 100% |
No state government homepage passed the minimum legal threshold for digital accessibility under Section 508 or ADA Title II. These findings expose a significant disconnect between compliance mandates and real-world implementation.
Our findings reinforce a clear message: Accessibility cannot be treated as a one-time fix or an afterthought. It must be built into every phase of digital strategy, from procurement and design to content management and long-term maintenance.
Our findings reinforce a clear message: Accessibility cannot be treated as a one-time fix or an afterthought. It must be built into every phase of digital strategy, from procurement and design to content management and long-term maintenance.
Most Common Accessibility Failures
Our audit identified a recurring set of accessibility barriers that directly impact residents’ ability to access critical public services. While some stem from structural code issues that prevent assistive technologies from functioning correctly, others are content-level oversights that are easily avoidable.
Top 6 Failures Identified Across All State Websites
| Issue | WCAG Criterion | % of Sites | Technical Reference |
| Low Contrast Text | 1.4.3 (AA) | 84% | G18, G145 |
| Missing alt text for images | 1.1.1 (A) | 81% | F65, H37 |
| Unlabeled form inputs | 3.3.2 (A) | 65% | F68, H44 |
| Empty buttons or ambiguous links | 2.4.4 / 4.1.2 (A) | 60% | H91, G108, F89 |
| Missing language declaration | 3.1.1 (A) | 67% | F40 |
| Readability too complex | 3.1.5 (AAA) | 72% | G153, G86 |
These issues are not superficial or simple inconveniences. They are functional barriers that prevent users from completing essential government tasks. For example:
- A veteran trying to apply for benefits may struggle with a complex form that lacks labeled input fields.
- A non-native English speaker using a screen reader may be met with unintelligible output due to a missing language tag.
- An individual with low vision may be unable to read key instructions on a voter registration page due to low contrast text.
Many of these failures also carry legal implications under the ADA Title II and Section 508.
Download the Report to keep on your device
Deep Dive: Critical Issues
While our audit identified dozens of accessibility violations across U.S. state government homepages, a small group of high-frequency, high-impact issues stood out. These barriers not only affect technical compliance but also directly interfere with users’ ability to navigate information and complete forms.
All four of the failures listed below are known to block screen reader access, confuse keyboard-only users, or create unnecessary cognitive load. So, they disproportionately affect users with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with limited digital literacy.
1. Low Contrast Text
❌ Failure: 1.4.3 (AA)
Text that lacks sufficient contrast against its background is hard to read, particularly for users with low vision, color blindness, or mobile glare environments. This issue is especially prevalent on navigation bars, CTAs (call-to-actions), and footer links, where contrast is often sacrificed for aesthetics or branding.
Example:
An elderly user with glaucoma cannot read an alert banner due to pale grey text on a white background.
Fix:
Ensure text and background colors meet at least a 4.5:1 contrast ratio.
CSS
color:#333;background:#fff;
2. Missing Alternative Text
❌ Failure: 1.1.1 (A)
When images lack appropriate alt attributes, screen readers are unable to convey visual content to users. This failure affects navigation icons, maps, agency logos, and even essential documents displayed as images.
Example:
A partially blind website visitor cannot access a state election map showing polling stations because the image lacks descriptive alt text.
Fix:
Add descriptive alt attributes to all relevant images, or use alt=”” for decorative graphics.
3. Unlabeled Form Inputs
❌ Failure: 3.3.2 (A)
Forms without proper labels or programmatic associations leave screen reader users unsure of what to enter. This affects everything from submitting claims and applications to appointment scheduling and license renewals.
Example:
A user relying on a screen reader encounters a blank input field with no description while applying for Medicaid benefits, making task completion impossible.
Fix:
HTML
<label for="email">Email</label>
4. Missing Language Declaration
❌ Failure: 3.1.1 (A)
Without the correct lang attribute on the <html> element, screen readers may default to the wrong pronunciation rules. This is especially harmful for users who rely on audio output to comprehend content.
Example:
A Spanish-speaking user accessing a bilingual unemployment form hears garbled output due to a missing lang=”es” declaration.
Fix:
HTML
...
<p lang="es">Bienvenido al sitio oficial del estado.</p>
These foundational issues prevent users from fully engaging with government services. However, they are also among the easiest to fix. Most require only minor code adjustments, guided by standard accessibility practices.
Notably, these same failures appear across other industries and sectors we’ve analyzed, from travel and education to eCommerce and financial services. This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a systemic blind spot. The persistence of these issues across so many public-facing websites highlights a deeper concern: accessibility is still too often treated as an optional layer rather than a core requirement of inclusive digital design.
Speak to an Accessibility Expert
Don’t wait to build accessible online environments for your customers. At Recite Me our team of accessibility experts can help you create more inclusive digital spaces.Reach out through our contact form to see how we can help you.
Regional Insights
While accessibility performance varied across states, no region achieved acceptable WCAG conformance, even at the foundational Level A. We grouped states according to U.S. Census Bureau regions to assess differences in error severity, content complexity, and markup quality.
| Region | Avg A Errors | Avg AA Errors | Avg AAA Errors | Common Issues |
| Northeast | 28 | 10 | 18 | Missing alt text, contrast |
| Midwest | 30 | 12 | 20 | Form labels, readability barriers |
| South | 35 | 14 | 25 | Missing language tags, contrast |
| West | 22 | 8 | 16 | Semantic structure, more consistent markup |
Standout Statistics
Most Readable Website
Kentucky was the sole state homepage rated as “Easy” to read, significantly improving access for users with cognitive disabilities or lower literacy.
Most Accessible Homepage Overall
Kentucky also scored the lowest number of total errors, with just 1 Level A and 1 AAA issue, and no AA issues. This makes it the strongest performer in our audit and a practical benchmark for inclusive, legally defensible state web design.
Most Fundamental Errors (Level A)
Tennessee recorded 80 Level A violations, the highest in the dataset, indicating serious gaps in foundational accessibility such as alt text, input labels, and structural markup.
Most Compliance Errors (Level AA)
Arkansas had the highest number of Level AA violations with 46, pointing to significant failures in meeting WCAG conformance thresholds for contrast, keyboard accessibility, and focus handling.
Most Readability Errors (Level AAA)
Illinois showed the highest number of AAA-level issues, with 95 AAA violations, highlighting substantial barriers in content complexity and language clarity.
How to Get Started on Easy Fixes
While accessibility performance varied across states, no region achieved acceptable WCAG conformance, even at the foundational Level A. We grouped states according to U.S. Census Bureau regions to assess differences in error severity, content complexity, and markup quality.
Fix
Why it Matters
Estimated Effort
Add lang=”en” to <html>
Allows screen readers to pronounce content correctly.
Very Low (<1 hour)
Add missing alt text to images
Ensures screen reader users receive meaningful image descriptions
Low (1–2 hours)
Improve text contrast
Makes text readable for users with low vision or color blindness
Low (2–3 hours)
Fix empty buttons/links
Prevents screen readers from announcing “button” or “link” with no context
Low (2–4 hours)
Add visible focus indicators
Makes it clear where keyboard users are on the page
Low (2–4 hours)
Label all form inputs
Helps users with screen readers complete forms without confusion
Medium (half–1 day)
While accessibility performance varied across states, no region achieved acceptable WCAG conformance, even at the foundational Level A. We grouped states according to U.S. Census Bureau regions to assess differences in error severity, content complexity, and markup quality.
Speak to an Accessibility Consultant
Don’t wait to build accessible online environments for your customers. At Recite Me our team of accessibility experts can help you create more inclusive digital spaces. Reach out through our contact form to see how we can help you.
Further Recommendations: A Practical Roadmap for Improvement
Creating inclusive government websites doesn’t require a complete overhaul. However, it does require a structured approach, cross-departmental buy-in, and a clear understanding of priorities. Here’s a practical roadmap to help state agencies begin or accelerate their digital accessibility journey:
STEP ONE
Audit & Plan
Conduct automated and manual scans across your homepage and key service pages (e.g., benefits, taxes, licensing, elections).
Benchmark your current WCAG conformance level and readability scores.
Identify high-impact blockers, such as missing alt text, form labels, contrast issues, or ambiguous links.
STEP TWO
Start Fixing What Matters Most
Prioritize updates that affect core user tasks, including form submissions, navigation menus, and keyboard/screen reader compatibility.
Consider deploying assistive tools, like the Recite Me Toolbar, to provide immediate support for users with access needs.
Start with the easy wins. Many common errors can be fixed with basic HTML and CSS adjustments.
STEP THREE
Get the Right People Involved
Bring together web, design, development, content, legal, and compliance teams to ensure a unified accessibility strategy.
Review external vendors and digital service providers for accessibility guarantees or conformance support.
Assign clear ownership and accountability for accessibility across departments to ensure digital inclusion becomes a shared responsibility.
STEP FOUR
Build Internal Knowledge
Train staff on accessibility principles, including semantic HTML, plain language writing, and WCAG guidelines.
Integrate accessibility checks into your QA processes and content publishing workflows.
Appoint accessibility champions to support teams and keep best practices top of mind throughout your digital ecosystem.
STEP FIVE
Communicate Progress
Create or update your public-facing accessibility statement, including known issues and planned improvements.
Set up a feedback channel that’s accessible to all users, and particularly those using assistive technology.
Track and share ongoing improvements to foster transparency and public trust.
REMEMBER
Accessibility progress doesn’t require perfection from day one. It starts with commitment, collaboration, and action. Each step forward creates a more inclusive digital environment, where every resident has equitable access to the information and services they need.
In the last 12 months, British Gas’ website has seen:
175,851
toolbar launches
1,052,760
pages made inclusive
Understanding ADA Title II and the 2026 DOJ Mandate
Digital accessibility is no longer a recommendation for public entities. It is a civil rights obligation, codified and enforceable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Title II requires that all state and local governments provide equal access to any services, programs, and activities delivered via websites, online portals, and mobile applications.
In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized a rule under Title II that mandates conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA for public entities’ web content and mobile apps. The rule goes into full effect in 2026, with specific compliance deadlines based on the size of the public entity:
DEADLINE
Larger Entities (serving 50,000+ people):
2-year compliance window (by April 2026)
Smaller Entities:
3-year compliance window (by April 2027)
The DOJ guidance applies to new and existing digital content, not just newly published pages, and highlights the importance of plain language, assistive tech compatibility, and keyboard navigation.
However, the ADA is not the only piece of web accessibility legislation to be aware of. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires all federal agencies and any state or local agency receiving federal funding to ensure that their electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities.
Why State Government Websites Are Legally Required to Be Accessible
State websites are often the primary touchpoint for essential services such as:
Healthcare enrollment
Voter registration
Tax filing
Unemployment claims
Disaster relief
Professional licensing and renewals
Public benefits applications (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid)
When accessibility barriers exist, they aren’t just inconvenient. They are discriminatory. Web accessibility failures directly exclude millions of Americans, especially those who:
- Use screen readers or keyboard-only navigation.
- Have low vision, color blindness, or cognitive disabilities.
- Depend on plain language content or multilingual support.
The bottom line? Accessible digital services are not a courtesy. They are a civil rights obligation under federal law.
What’s In Scope for Government Websites?
All digital services and communications from state government agencies are subject to accessibility standards. This includes:
- State department and agency websites.
- Online forms and applications.
- Portals for benefits, taxes, elections, and licensing.
- Public health information and alerts.
- Mobile apps and intranet services.
- Any downloadable or shareable documents (PDFs, Word files, etc.).
In short, if the public relies on it, it must be accessible.
Non-compliance Findings
Failure to meet legal accessibility obligations can result in:
Legal action from individuals, advocacy groups, or the DOJ.
Federal investigations or enforcement agreements.
Loss of public trust and reputational damage related to exclusion or discrimination.
Procurement and grant funding risks, as more contracts require digital accessibility guarantees.
Increased retrofit costs when accessibility is addressed too late in the development lifecycle
These risks highlight the fact that accessibility isn’t just a legal box to tick. It’s a vital part of inclusive governance, digital equity, and public service excellence.
Conclusion
The numbers don’t lie. Not a single U.S. state government homepage currently meets WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. That means millions of Americans, including veterans, seniors, disabled citizens, and non-native English speakers, are still being excluded from vital public services.
This represents a systemic failure with real-world consequences where some of the most vulnerable citizens are excluded due to avoidable digital barriers. In our digital age, this is unacceptable, as government websites must be built to serve everyone equally, effectively, and without exception.
The good news is that accessibility isn’t about perfection. It’s about progress, and most issues are fixable quickly, affordably, and at scale. With the right tools, teams, and commitment, state agencies can begin closing the digital equity gap and claw back public trust.
Accessibility is achievable and long overdue.
Let’s get to work and make it happen. The tools are here. The time is now. The next move is yours.
Methodology & Scope
This report is based on an independent audit conducted by Recite Me using our Accessibility Checker.
- Scope of Review
We evaluated the official homepage URLs of all 50 U.S. state government websites. Homepages were selected because they serve as the primary entry point for residents seeking public services. - Testing Approach
Each homepage was programmatically scanned against the latest Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2, Level A–AAA. Our Accessibility Checker identifies accessibility errors detectable through automated technology such as missing alternative text, low contrast text, and unlabeled form inputs. - Limitations
Automated testing surfaces a significant proportion of common accessibility barriers but does not capture every possible issue. Manual testing methods (e.g., user journeys with screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, or cognitive load assessments) would likely identify additional barriers. For this reason, the results in this report should be seen as a benchmark of technical compliance rather than a full accessibility audit. - Data Integrity
All results reflect the state of each homepage at the time of testing (July 2025). Websites may have been updated since. The analysis is intended to highlight trends, common failures, and areas for improvement not to single out or criticize any specific state.