Department of Justice's Activities to Address Past
Election-Related Voting Irregularities (14-SEP-04, GAO-04-1041R).
Election-day problems in Florida and elsewhere in November 2000
raised concerns about voting systems that included, among other
things, alleged voting irregularities that may have affected
voter access to the polls. The term voting irregularities
generally refers to a broad array of complaints relating to
voting and/or elections that may involve violations of federal
voting rights and/or federal criminal law for which the
Department of Justice (DOJ) has enforcement responsibilities. The
Ranking Minority Members of several Congressional committees
requested that we review activities at DOJ to help ensure voter
access to the polls and actions to address allegations of voting
irregularities. This report (1) identifies and describes changes
DOJ has made since November 2000 to help ensure voter access to
the polls; (2) identifies and describes actions that the Voting
Section in DOJ's Civil Rights Division has taken to track,
address, and assess allegations of election-related voting
irregularities received between November 2000 and December 2003;
and (3) assesses the Voting Section's internal control activities
to help ensure relevant, accurate, and reliable recording and
documentation of allegations of voting irregularities to
accurately track actions taken in response to allegations and
provide accurate and complete information to the public and
congressional committees.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-1041R
ACCNO: A12461
TITLE: Department of Justice's Activities to Address Past
Election-Related Voting Irregularities
DATE: 09/14/2004
SUBJECT: Civil rights
Elections
Federal records management
Intergovernmental relations
Public relations
Voting records
Internal controls
Documentation
Voting systems
DOJ Interactive Case Management System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-1041R
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
September 14, 2004
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Governmental Affairs United States Senate
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Government Reform House of Representatives
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Minority Member Committee on the
Judiciary House of Representatives
Subject: Department of Justice's Activities to Address Past
Election-Related Voting Irregularities
Election-day problems in Florida and elsewhere in November 2000 raised
concerns about voting systems that included, among other things, alleged
voting irregularities that may have affected voter access to the polls.
The term voting irregularities generally refers to a broad array of
complaints relating to voting and/or elections that may involve violations
of federal voting rights and/or federal criminal law for which the
Department of Justice (DOJ) has enforcement responsibilities.
You requested that we review activities at DOJ to help ensure voter access
to the polls and actions to address allegations of voting irregularities.
This report (1) identifies and describes changes DOJ has made since
November 2000 to help ensure voter access to the polls; (2) identifies and
describes actions that the Voting Section in DOJ's Civil Rights Division
has taken to track, address, and assess allegations of election-related1
voting irregularities received between November 2000 and December 2003;
and (3) assesses the Voting Section's internal control2 activities
1Election-related refers to a preliminary investigation, matter, or case
that the Voting Section initiated based on allegations about a specific
election. A matter is an activity that has been assigned an identification
number but has not resulted in a court filing of a complaint, indictment,
or information. A case is an activity that has been assigned the same
identification number that it had as a matter and has resulted in the
court filing of a complaint, indictment, or information.
2Internal controls are integral components of an organization's management
that provide reasonable assurances of objectives that include, among other
things, efficient operations. They comprise the plans, methods, and
procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives and, in doing so,
support performance-based management. For additional information on
internal controls, see GAO Internal Control: Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government, AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington,
D.C.:November 1, 1999).
to help ensure relevant, accurate, and reliable recording and
documentation of allegations of voting irregularities to accurately track
actions taken in response to allegations and provide accurate and complete
information to the public and congressional committees.
We primarily performed our work at DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Voting
Section. We obtained relevant documentation and interviewed responsible
officials regarding DOJ's activities to help ensure voter access to the
polls. To identify and describe changes made since November 2000, we
reviewed documentation on DOJ's efforts to monitor and observe elections,
increase emphasis on enforcement of minority language and overseas voters'
rights, disseminate election-related guidance, and increase its resources
to address voting issues. To identify and describe actions that the Voting
Section took to track, address, and assess allegations of voting
irregularities, we reviewed telephone logs and 34 files with information
on a preliminary investigation, matters, and cases that the Voting Section
considered to be election-related voting irregularities initiated from
November 2000 to December 2003. To assess the Voting Section's internal
controls, we obtained available documentation of policies, procedures, and
techniques the Voting Section has to manage allegations of voting
irregularities and considered them in relation to GAO's internal control
standards. We also interviewed officials and obtained documentation from
DOJ's Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section (PIN), in relation to
the coordination between the Voting Section and PIN to address voter
access to the polls.
On August 31, 2004, we provided your staffs a briefing document on the
results of our work. Enclosure I contains the materials we presented at
that time. Our audit work was performed in Washington, D.C., from May 2003
through August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Background
The Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division is charged with the
responsibility of enforcing federal voting rights statutes that are
designed to safeguard the right to vote of racial and language minorities;
disabled, elderly, and illiterate persons; and military and overseas
voters, among others. The Voting Section is also charged with the
responsibility of enforcing federal statutes that, among other things,
address issues such as voter registration, provisional voting, and voter
information. Provisional voting permits eligible persons to vote on
election day if their names are not on voter registration lists, with the
understanding that each person's eligibility will be verified after the
election and their votes counted, if eligible. (See enc. I, and attach. I,
for more information on statutes that the Voting Section enforces.)
The Voting Section, among other things, monitors election-day activities
to ensure voting rights are protected and initiates investigations and
opens matters-an activity that has not resulted in a court filing of a
complaint, indictment, or information-to examine allegations of voting
irregularities that fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights
Division. If warranted, a matter may culminate in a case-an activity that
has resulted in the filing of a complaint, indictment, or information with
a federal court.
The Voting Section also may initiate matters to monitor private lawsuits.
Voting Section attorneys are generally responsible for conducting
investigations and prosecuting cases.
The Voting Section also coordinates with PIN to refer allegations the
Voting Section receives that involve violations of criminal statutes
related to voting fraud. For example, in relation to the 2002 federal
election, the Voting Section referred three matters deemed to be potential
violations of criminal laws to PIN, which assumed responsibility for the
investigations. In addition, the Voting Section and PIN have provided
joint training to Assistant U.S. Attorneys, with the Voting Section
presenting information about civil rights statutes that are to protect the
right to vote and PIN presenting information about criminal statutes that
are to prevent election fraud.
Results
Since November 2000, DOJ has implemented changes to help ensure voter
access to the polls. The Voting Section emphasized the importance of its
monitoring of election-day activities and increased its monitoring of
these activities. In 2000, DOJ attorneys and professional staff monitored
elections in 5 counties in 5 states. By 2002, the number of election
jurisdictions monitored by DOJ attorneys and professional staff increased
to 19 counties in 10 states, with monitoring of elections in counties in
Florida accounting for the bulk of the increase. The Voting Section also
(1) placed a greater priority on protecting the voting rights of language
minority voters by helping to ensure that certain covered jurisdictions
provided bilingual voting materials for elections; (2) placed a priority
on enforcing and preparing for compliance with the federal statute to help
ensure voting rights of overseas voters; (3) provided additional training
to Assistant U.S. Attorneys on civil rights statutes to educate them about
voters' rights; and (4) provided guidance to states regarding the
implementation of sections of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)
that DOJ enforces.3 For example, the Voting Section provided guidance to
states by issuing a press release that outlined provisions of HAVA that
took effect on January 1, 2004, such as provisional voting and
identification requirements for new voters who register by mail.
The Attorney General directed the Civil Rights Division to work with civil
rights leaders, state and local election officials, and U.S. Attorney
Offices prior to election day in an effort to help ensure that citizens'
voting rights are protected. The Attorney General also directed the
Criminal Division to work with these same groups in helping to preserve
ballot integrity and prevent election offenses. Almost all of the U.S.
Attorney Offices reported that they had contacted various state or local
officials prior to the November 2002 election. Voting Section officials
reported that the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
and staff from that division met with various civil rights organizations.
3 42 U.S.C. S:S: 15301 to 15545.
According to Voting Section officials, DOJ plans to help ensure voter
access for the upcoming November 2004 election include increasing its
monitoring of elections, coordinating with civil rights organizations, and
establishing procedures for bringing the concerns of civil rights
organizations about specific issues or jurisdictions to DOJ on or before
election day in November 2004. Voting Section officials also said that
final decisions as to where monitoring will be conducted are not made
public until shortly before an election. (See enc. I for more
information.)
The Voting Section has used several means of tracking allegations of
voting irregularities and the Section's actions with regard to those
allegations. First, the Voting Section used telephone logs to track
telephone calls regarding allegations of voting irregularities it received
related to the November 2000 and 2002 elections. According to the Voting
Section, contractors were hired to help handle the unprecedented number of
calls that were received concerning the November 2000 election situation
to help ensure that the public would be able to voice opinions and
concerns. Second, DOJ tracks matters and cases through its Interactive
Case Management (ICM) system-its formal process for tracking and managing
work activities. Prior to opening a matter, the Voting Section may make a
determination that an allegation does not fall within DOJ's jurisdiction
or may initiate a preliminary investigation about an allegation. Third,
the Voting Section tracked monitoring of elections using logs and for some
election-monitoring activities they opened matters; thus, it has not
routinely tracked election-monitoring activities through the ICM system.
(See enc. I for more information.)
Actions that Voting Section attorneys took to address allegations of
voting irregularities initiated from November 2000 to December 2003
included contacting cognizant election officials at the state and local
levels; obtaining data as appropriate; interviewing voters affected by
alleged voting irregularities; meeting with minority groups; and assessing
the merits of the allegations to determine what, if any, further action
was needed. Attorneys in the Voting Section addressed allegations of
voting irregularities by first determining whether the allegations were
related to violations of federal civil rights statutes and then, if
warranted, initiating a preliminary investigation or matter to determine
whether an allegation had merit. If warranted, a matter may culminate in a
case that is filed with a federal court. We reviewed files for 1 closed
preliminary investigation, 25 closed matters, and 8 open and closed cases
that the Voting Section considered election-related. The preliminary
investigation and 13 matters were closed because they lacked merit. The
remaining 12 matters were closed because the state or voting jurisdiction
took action to remedy an issue, a state court issued an order addressing
the issue, the voting jurisdiction implemented changes for future
elections, or Voting Section attorneys provided election officials
feedback following the on-site monitoring of elections. Six cases remain
open pending fulfillment of consent decrees entered into on behalf of DOJ
and the jurisdiction in alleged violation of federal statute, and two
cases were closed because states had taken action in response to consent
decrees. Enclosure I and attachment IV provide detailed information on
actions taken regarding selected matters and cases that the Voting Section
considered as involving election-related voting irregularities initiated
from November 2000 to December 2003.
Regarding internal controls, we found that the Voting Section did not have
a reliable method to consistently record and document telephone calls
received alleging voting irregularities. According to Voting Section
officials, the number of calls received following the November 2000
election far exceeded the number received in past elections. As a result,
the Voting Section used a contractor to assist in handling the telephone
calls. To track some of the telephone calls related to the November 2000
election, Voting Section and contractor staff used telephone logs that had
several broad categories to capture the subject of the allegation, rows
for states from which the calls originated and, for the most part,
tabulated the numbers of calls using tick marks. Voting Section staff also
kept two other types of logs to record some telephone calls, which
included columns to record a caller's name, state, telephone number, and
description of the call. Our analysis of the contractor telephone logs
found, among other things, that these logs did not include a way to record
calls from 4 states-Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota. According
to Voting Section officials, these 4 states were left off the contractor
logs inadvertently, although these officials noted that they were unaware
of any calls received from these states. Our analysis of logs that Voting
Section staff completed found that Voting Section staff recorded having
received calls from some of these states. The Voting Section improved upon
the telephone log for the November 2002 election by having one log that
consistently provided for documenting the caller's name, telephone number,
and action taken. Compared with the telephone log that contractor staff
maintained and one of the three types of logs that Voting Section staff
maintained after the November 2000 election, which had several columns to
broadly categorize the subject of the telephone calls, the November 2002
log included one column to capture the subject of the telephone calls. The
Voting Section plans to take several actions to address voting
irregularities for the November 2004 election, including, among other
things, using a telephone log similar to the one used for the November
2002 election. The Voting Section did not provide written instructions to
contractors for completing the telephone logs related to the 2000
election. However, for the November 2002 federal election, the Voting
Section provided instructions to DOJ staff for how to handle calls from
citizens, the press, members of Congress, and others. In addition to its
method for recording and documenting telephone calls received regarding
voting irregularities, we found that the Voting Section did not routinely
track its electionmonitoring activities through its ICM system. The Voting
Section said that it has plans to assign one identification number to
track these activities in the future. (See enc. I for more information.)
In conclusion, lack of specifics about allegations and actions limits
DOJ's ability to have accurate and clear information to share with the
public or Congress about the types of allegations received and actions
taken. Predictions of another close presidential election in November 2004
combined with possible voter confusion over new requirements in the Help
America Vote Act-such as the implementation of provisional voting in
states that had not previously used provisional voting-and possible
questions regarding voting equipment could result in the Voting Section
again receiving a very large number of telephone calls. This could result
in the need to use contractors to record voter allegations because much of
the Voting Section staff will be monitoring election sites on election
day. It is important that the
information collected be as complete, accurate, and specific as possible
regarding specific allegations. If the Voting Section collects more
precise information about voter allegations, it is in a better position to
assure the public that it has addressed allegations of voting
irregularities. Moreover, if it documents actions taken more precisely, it
is better able to reassure the public and Congress of its commitment to
enforce federal voting rights statutes.
The Voting Section emphasized the importance of its monitoring of
election-day activities, but the monitoring program has not been routinely
tracked in the Voting Section's ICM system. We believe the significance of
this program warrants a more formal tracking of monitoring efforts and
resources dedicated to the program to allow for reliable, relevant, and
timely information for management decision making and for external
reporting purposes.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Confidence in our election processes is of utmost importance. To help
ensure confidence in the integrity of voting processes, the Voting Section
plays an important role in addressing voting irregularities. By accurately
recording and documenting its activities in as clear a manner as possible,
the Voting Section contributes to assuring the public and Congress of the
integrity of our voting processes and that allegations of voting
irregularities have been addressed.
To reassure citizens of the integrity of our election processes and to
reassure the public and Congress of DOJ's commitment to its responsibility
to enforce federal voting rights statutes, we recommend that the Attorney
General direct the Chief of the Voting Section to take the following two
actions
o develop and implement procedures for the November 2004 election to
help ensure that the Voting Section has a reliable method of tracking and
documenting allegations of voting irregularities and actions taken to
address them. Procedures could include more precise categories to record
types of allegations and actions taken; development of instructions on
completing the telephone logs; and development and implementation of
training for contractors, should they be needed; and
o implement a method to track and report on election-monitoring
activities in the ICM system.
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. The
draft report sent to DOJ for comment reflected changes made as a result of
DOJ's prior detailed review of attachment IV in enclosure I and changes
DOJ requested in writing following our exit conference with them. In
commenting on the draft, DOJ generally agreed with the report and
recommendations. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division accepted both recommendations and said that the
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division has directed
their implementation.
In commenting on our recommendation for the Civil Rights Division to track
and report on election-monitoring activities in the ICM system, DOJ noted
that it currently has procedures that effectively track
election-monitoring activities. Our report acknowledges that the Division
had information on election monitoring. However, the Voting Section told
us that they did not routinely track election-monitoring activities in the
ICM system-its formal process for tracking and managing work activities.
Because we had asked for clarification of the confusing and unclear
information previously provided on election monitoring and tracking, the
Civil Rights Division, in a May 25, 2004, written response provided
clarifying information that explained the different databases and data
from logs that were used to capture information on election monitoring. In
this written response, the Civil Rights Division included four charts on
election monitoring that had been recently created, one for each calendar
year from 2000 through 2003 (but not for 2004, as the Division states it
did). In addition, the Civil Rights Division said that it had asked for a
program that would provide the types of reports and data that the Division
is routinely asked to provide regarding the election-monitoring program.
Our recommendation is directed toward improving the Voting Section's
tracking of election-monitoring activities, which the Voting Section has
emphasized as being a very important part of its efforts to help ensure
voter access to the polls. Tracking election-monitoring activities in the
ICM system would ensure that this important component of the Voting
Section's work is incorporated into the Division's formal process for
tracking and managing work activities.
After we provided DOJ with a copy of the draft report that included this
correspondence and its enclosure for review and comment, Civil Rights
Division officials realized they had not provided us with information on
all of the telephone logs used following the November 2000 election. The
Civil Rights Division subsequently provided that additional information,
which showed that Voting Section staff used two additional types of logs
for the November 2000 election. These logs included columns to record
callers' names, telephone numbers, states, and descriptions of the calls.
This new information was incorporated into our report to accurately
reflect the Voting Section's activities to track telephone calls following
the November 2000 election. (See p. 5 in this letter and p. 42 in enc. I.)
According to the Civil Rights Division, the November 2002 log, which it
proposes as the basis for documenting telephone calls related to the
upcoming November 2004 elections, was the only one used by Voting Section
staff for the November 2002 election.
DOJ noted that the draft report discussion of the Civil Rights Division's
use of telephone logs focused almost exclusively on the logs maintained by
contractors, that the draft report failed to note that these logs were
only a small portion of all the records of telephone calls received by the
Division, and that any shortcomings in these logs were extremely unlikely
to have changed the course of subsequent investigations. As we note in our
report, it was difficult to obtain precise information on the number of
calls or the specific nature of alleged irregularities from the
telephone logs on the November 2000 election. The information that the
Voting Section collected on its telephone logs was not precise enough to
support the Division's statements that upwards of 95 percent of the calls
received regarding the November 2000 election reflected citizen
frustration or anger over the election, that the vast majority of the
calls that contractors received came from New York and California, or that
the vast majority of the calls from those two states expressed frustration
over the situation in Florida. Moreover, it is important to note that our
recommendation with regard to recording complaints about voting
irregularities for the November 2004 election is based on the limitations
of the log used in November 2002 and the lack of a clear plan for
accurately recording a potentially large volume of complaints that may
arise from the November 2004 election. For example, November 2004 will be
the first national election in which all states will be implementing
HAVA's new voter identification and provisional voting requirements with
which many voters may be unfamiliar.
In its comments, DOJ said that the Civil Rights Division invited us to
meet with Voting Section staff who worked during the time of the November
2000 election and that we declined this invitation. We did not receive an
invitation from officials in the Civil Rights Division, who arranged our
meetings with Voting Section staff, to meet to discuss the November 2000
election logs. Throughout this review, we requested meetings with Voting
Section and Civil Rights Division officials. It is always our preference,
as part of our work, to meet with agency officials to discuss issues and
questions we may have about agency processes, procedures, and
documentation. However, Civil Rights Division officials preferred that we
provide questions in writing and to respond to those questions in writing.
The Civil Rights Division sometimes took weeks to respond in writing,
which contributed significantly to the length of time it took us to
complete our review. Had Civil Rights Division officials been more willing
to meet with us to explain the Voting Section's processes and discuss the
documentation provided to us, rather than rely on written questions and
responses, the time required for this review could have been significantly
reduced.
DOJ's written comments are in attachment V. DOJ also provided technical
comments from the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section and from
the Civil Rights Division, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Civil
Rights Division provided additional information on cases initiated for
calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. The 2002 and 2003 cases involved
enforcement under Sections 2 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act and were not
clearly identifiable in the ICM system as also involving language minority
issues under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights
Division subsequently identified these cases as including enforcement of
language minority violations, and we have included them in our report.
Information on cases initiated in calendar year 2004 had not been included
because our review covered complete calendar years, but we have added
information on cases initiated in 2004 as of August 2004 as a courtesy to
the Division.
___ ___ ___ ___ ____
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
its issue date. At that time, we
will send copies of this report to the Attorney General, Department of
Justice;
Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Chairman, House
Committee
on Government Reform; Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary; Chairman
and
Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on House Administration; and
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. Copies of this report will be made available to other
interested
parties upon request. This report will also be available on GAO's Web site
at
http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions, please contact me at (202)
512-8777 or
by e-mail at jenkinswo@gao.gov or Linda Watson, Assistant Director, at
(202)
512-8685 or by e-mail at watsonl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report
were
Katherine Davis, Gina Flacco, Evan Gilman, Geoffrey Hamilton, Mary Martin,
Maria Santos, and Daniele Schiffman.
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Enclosures
Enclosure I
Enclosure I
DOJ Activities to Address Past
Election-Related Voting Irregularities
Results of work completed for the
Ranking Minority Member of the
House Committee on Government Reform,
Ranking Minority Member of the
House Committee on the Judiciary, and
Ranking Member of the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
August 31, 2004
Enclosure I
Contents
o Objectives
o Results in Brief
o Scope and Methodology
o Background
o Changes to Ensure Voter Access
o Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations
o Assessment of Internal Controls
o Conclusions
o Recommendations
o Attachment I-Federal Voting Rights Statutes
o Attachment II-Role of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section
o Attachment III-Election Jurisdictions Monitored during 2000-2003
o Attachment IV-Election-Related Preliminary Investigation, Matters, and
Cases Initiated from November 2000 to December 2003
o Attachment V-Agency Comments
Enclosure I
This briefing addresses the following objectives:
1. Identify and describe any changes the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
made since November 2000 to help ensure voter access to the polls.
2. Identify and describe any actions that the Voting Section in DOJ's
Civil Rights Division has taken to track (monitoring work initiated and
actions taken), address, and assess allegations of electionrelated voting
irregularities received between November 2000 and December 2003.
o Election-related refers to a preliminary investigation, matter, or case
that the Voting Section initiated pursuant to an allegation about a
specific election.
Enclosure I
o A preliminary investigation is an investigation into an allegation that
has not been assigned an identification number. A matter is an activity
that has been assigned an identification number but has not resulted in a
court filing of a complaint, indictment, or information. A case is an
activity that has been assigned the same identification number that it had
as a matter and has resulted in the court filing of a complaint,
indictment, or information.
o Voting irregularities, for purposes of this review, generally refer to
a broad array of complaints relating to voting and/or elections that may
involve violations of federal voting rights and/or federal criminal law
for which DOJ has enforcement responsibilities.
3. Assess the Voting Section's internal control activities to help ensure
relevant, accurate, and reliable recording and documentation of
allegations of voting irregularities for management decision-making and
external reporting purposes.
o Internal controls are integral components of an organization's
management that provide reasonable assurance of objectives that include,
among other things, efficient operations. They comprise the plans,
methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives and,
in doing so, support performance-based management.
Enclosure I
1. Since November 2000, DOJ has increased its monitoring of election
activities on election day, provided additional training to Assistant U.S.
Attorneys on civil rights laws, placed a greater priority on protecting
the voting rights of language minorities and overseas voters, and provided
guidance to states regarding implementation of the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA).
2. The Civil Rights Division tracks matters and cases through a case
management system. Telephone calls related to the 2000 and 2002 federal
elections were tracked using telephone logs. The Voting Section addressed
allegations of voting irregularities by contacting cognizant officials,
obtaining data if deemed appropriate, and assessing the merits of the
allegation to determine what, if any, further action was needed.
3. The Voting Section tracked the unprecedented volume of telephone calls
related to the November 2000 election by using logs. Some logs had several
broad categories to capture the subject of the calls and rows for states
from which the calls originated, while other logs contained callers'
names, contact information, and description of the calls. The Voting
Section improved upon the telephone log for the November 2002 election by
including categories to capture the action taken on each call and to
record the caller's name, telephone number, and subject of the call. The
Voting Section tracked some monitoring of elections by assigning matter
identification numbers.
Enclosure I
Scope and Methodology
Enclosure I
Scope
To address our objectives, we performed work at DOJ's:
o Civil Rights Division's Voting Section,
o Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section (PIN),
o Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Public Corruption Unit, and
o Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA).
Enclosure I
Methodology Objective 1
To identify changes in DOJ's efforts to help ensure voter access to the
polls, we
o gathered documentation on DOJ's efforts to
o monitor and observe elections,
o increase emphasis on enforcement of minority language and overseas
voters' rights,
o disseminate election-related guidance, and
o increase its resources to address voting issues, and
o interviewed responsible officials primarily in DOJ's Voting Section and
PIN.
Enclosure I
Methodology Objective 2
To identify DOJ's actions to track, address, and assess allegations of
voting irregularities, we
o interviewed officials in the Voting Section about procedures for
tracking, addressing, and assessing allegations of voting irregularities;
o analyzed information on the approximately 11,000 reported telephone
calls made to the Voting Section about the November 2000 election; and
o reviewed all files that the Voting Section identified as those it
considered to be election-related voting irregularities that were
initiated from November 2000 to December 2003. This included 1 closed
preliminary investigation, 25 closed matters, and 8 closed and open cases.
The Voting Section tracks its matters and cases based on statutes it
enforces and not on whether an allegation relates to a specific election.
Consequently, the Voting Section had to identify for us the preliminary
investigation, matters, and cases that it considered to be
election-related voting irregularities.
Enclosure I
Background
Voting Section
Enclosure I
Background
Voting Section responsibilities include:
o enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which is designed to safeguard the
right to vote of racial and language minorities and illiterate persons,
among other provisions;
o enforcing federal statutes designed to safeguard the right to vote of
disabled, elderly, military, and overseas voters; and
o enforcing provisions of the National Voter Registration Act, and the
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which address issues such as voter
registration, provisional voting, and voter information.
Attachment I provides more information on statutes that the Voting Section
enforces.
Enclosure I
Background
The Voting Section, among other things, monitors election-day activities
to ensure voting rights are protected and initiates investigations and
opens matters to examine allegations of voting irregularities that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Division. If warranted, a
matter may culminate in a case that is filed with a federal court.
Voting Section attorneys are generally responsible for conducting
investigations and prosecuting civil cases. The Voting Section also may
initiate matters to monitor private lawsuits.
The Voting Section coordinates with the Criminal Division's Public
Integrity Section (PIN) to help ensure voters' rights are protected, such
as referring three allegations to PIN about possible election crimes
related to the 2002 election. (See attach. II for more information about
PIN's election-related responsibilities.)
Enclosure I
Background
The following table provides information on all matters and cases
initiated by the Voting Section in calendar years 2000 through 2003.
Year initiated Matters Cases Total
2000 70 18 88
2001 53 6 59
2002 127 18 145
2003 99 4 103
Total 349 46 395
Source: GAO analysis of data from DOJ's Civil Rights Division's Voting
Section.
According to Voting Section officials, the number of matters was higher in
2002 because the Voting Section initiated new matters for each of the over
80 newly covered jurisdictions required by the Voting Rights Act to
provide bilingual election materials and assistance to language minority
citizens. Following the 2000 Census, DOJ, in conjunction with the U.S.
Census Bureau, identified these 80 jurisdictions. The Voting Rights Act
requires jurisdictions to provide language minority assistance when
certain criteria are met, such as when more than 5 percent of the citizens
of voting age, or more than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age, are
members of a single language minority group, and are unable to speak or
understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral
process.
Enclosure I
Background
As shown in the following table, the Voting Section's positions for
attorneys (authorized and on-board) increased since the beginning of
fiscal year 2000.
Time period Authorized attorney positions Attorneys on-board
Start FY 2000 34 31
End FY 2000 36 35
End FY 2001 47 40
End FY 2002 47 42
End FY 2003 41 38
As of April 16, 2004 41 39
Source: DOJ's Civil Rights Division's Voting Section.
The number of authorized and on-board attorneys declined at the end of
fiscal year 2003 because the number of submissions to the Voting Section
for redistricting changes following the 2000 Census began to decline that
year, according to Voting Section officials. Every 10 years, after the
federal census, states redraw their legislative election districts to make
these districts equal in population. The process of drawing new election
district boundaries is called redistricting.
Enclosure I
Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access
Enclosure I
Since November 2000, DOJ focused on ensuring voter access to the polls by
o placing more emphasis on its election-monitoring program,
o providing additional training for certain Assistant U.S. Attorneys who
handle election-related issues that included placing more emphasis on
handling civil rights issues,
o directing U.S. Attorney Offices to contact election and other officials
at the state and local level to offer assistance prior to election day,
o placing greater priority on enforcing the voting rights of language
minorities and overseas voters, and
o providing guidance to states regarding HAVA implementation.
Enclosure I
In March 2001, the Attorney General announced that DOJ was placing more
emphasis on its election-monitoring program. The Attorney General is
authorized by law to notify the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) of
the need to assign federal observers to monitor polling place activities
on election day in counties that the Attorney General has certified under
the Voting Rights Act and in counties authorized by federal court orders.
The Attorney General delegates the authority with respect to federal
observers to the Voting Section. The Voting Section's decision to request
federal observers is based on past experience or investigations that
indicated observers may be needed to protect voting rights. (See attach. I
for information on the law authorizing federal observers.)
In addition to OPM federal observers, the Voting Section assigns DOJ
attorneys and professional staff to monitor election day activities in
local jurisdictions throughout the United States, whether or not the
locations have been certified under the Voting Rights Act. This additional
monitoring is part of the Voting Section's investigations of possible
voting rights violations. Unlike OPM observers, DOJ attorneys and
professional staff do not have specific statutory right of access to
polling places and must get authority from the appropriate state and/or
local officials for them to enter polling places.
Enclosure I
DOJ attorneys and professional staff are assigned to these jurisdictions
when there may be insufficient time to arrange for federal observers in
covered jurisdictions, or when the results of Voting Section staff's
preelection investigations indicate the need for some limited federal
presence.
The Attorney General directed the Voting Section to increase resources
devoted to the election-monitoring program through the use of OPM federal
observers and DOJ attorneys and professional staff.
The level of resources used and number of elections monitored were greater
in federal election years (even-numbered years) than other years, as shown
in the next figure.
Enclosure I
The number of OPM federal observers and DOJ attorneys and professional
staff were greater in the 2002 elections than in the 2000 elections.
Similarly, more elections were monitored in 2002 than in 2000.
Note: DOJ monitors are attorneys and professional staff.
Enclosure I
OPM federal observers are always accompanied by DOJ attorneys and
professional staff when monitoring elections and were present for
elections held during calendar years 2000 through 2003 in Attorney
General-certified and court-ordered counties and jurisdictions in several
states. In a few instances, DOJ attorneys and professional staff
independently monitored elections in these Attorney General-certified and
court-ordered counties and jurisdictions.
DOJ attorneys and professional staff also independently monitored
elections in counties and jurisdictions that were not Attorney
General-certified or under court order during this 4-year period. In 2000,
DOJ attorneys and professional staff monitored elections in 5 counties in
5 states. By 2002, the number of election jurisdictions monitored by DOJ
attorneys and professional staff increased to 19 counties in 10 states,
with monitoring of elections in counties in Florida accounting for the
bulk of the increase.
According to the Voting Section, election monitoring is a high-priority
program of DOJ and a very important part of the Section's efforts to
address voting irregularities.
See attachment III for more information on election monitoring in Attorney
Generalcertified and court-ordered election jurisdictions and election
jurisdictions that DOJ monitored independently.
Enclosure I
Officials in the Voting Section and PIN said that Assistant U.S. Attorneys
can attend annual public corruption conferences, where they receive (1)
training on handling election crime investigations and prosecutions and
(2) periodic updates to DOJ's manual on prosecuting election crimes.
Starting in October 2002, additional annual training, referred to as the
Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Conference, was provided to Assistant
U.S. Attorneys who, in coordination with DOJ headquarters, handle
election-related matters for the 93 U.S. Attorneys.
The Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Conference training, according to
Civil Rights Division officials, included civil rights issues that had not
been covered in the training offered to Assistant U.S. Attorneys prior to
October 2002 and was designed to provide them a better understanding of
what the Voting Section does to enforce federal voting rights statutes.
Also, according to the Civil Rights Division, the presentations that the
Voting Section made at this annual training conference placed special
emphasis on the election-monitoring program and solicited the Assistant
U.S. Attorneys' involvement in helping to enforce federal voting rights
laws, ballot access, and the election-monitoring program. According to
PIN, this training, which was mandatory for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys
designated as district election officers, also covers voting integrity
issues important to election crime matters.
Enclosure I
The Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Conference training was provided to
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in October 2002, September 2003, and July 2004.
The training materials for 2002 included topics related to federal voter
registration and election-day statutes that the Voting Section enforces,
which include the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, and
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and topics
related to handling election crime investigations, trials, and the
statutes and theories used to address election crimes.
The 2003 training materials included, in addition to the same topics
covered in 2002, information on HAVA and election monitoring by federal
observers. According to PIN and the Voting Section, the content of the
2004 training was similar to that provided in previous years.
Enclosure I
Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access Contacts with State and Local Election
Officials
In October 2002, the Attorney General directed each U.S. Attorney to
coordinate with state and local election and law enforcement officials
prior to the November 2002 elections to, in part, explore ways that they
could work more closely together to deter and detect discrimination and to
deter and prosecute election crimes.
According to PIN officials, the Attorney General's October 2002 directive
(1) formalized an ad-hoc practice that had existed in DOJ for many years
of coordinating elections and election-related matters with state
officials and (2) led to a systematic effort to coordinate election issues
and matters with these officials.
Enclosure I
Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access Contacts with State and Local Election
Officials
Prior to the November 2002 federal elections, almost all of the U.S.
Attorney Offices reported to PIN that they had contacted various state or
local officials either by telephone, in writing, or in person.
The state and local officials contacted varied by each U.S. Attorney
Office. For example, according to PIN,
o the three U.S. Attorneys in the state of Florida reported having met
with the Florida Secretary of State and
o the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California reported
having met with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, Election
Administrator, and Deputy District Attorney, and the Imperial County
Registrar of Voters and District Attorney.
Enclosure I
The Attorney General directed the Civil Rights Division was to work with
civil rights leaders, state and local election officials, and U.S.
Attorney Offices prior to election day in an effort to help ensure that
citizens' voting rights are protected. The Attorney General also directed
the Criminal Division to work with these same groups in helping to
preserve ballot integrity and prevent election offenses.
According to the Voting Section, the Assistant Attorney General for the
Civil Rights Division has met with representatives of civil rights
organizations to discuss the Voting Section's election-monitoring program
and its plans for monitoring the November 2004 election and has made other
presentations concerning voting rights issues at many of these
organizations' meetings and conferences. The Voting Section also said that
as this election approaches, it plans to ask civil rights organizations
what election jurisdictions they believe the Voting Section should
consider monitoring.
The Voting Section also said that since October 2002, staff from the Civil
Rights Division have made presentations to, met with, or received
presentations from various civil rights and other organizations, such as
the NAACP, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, League of United
Latin American Citizens, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, AARP,
National Association of Secretaries of State, and National Association of
State Election Directors.
Enclosure I
In 2002, the Civil Rights Division made enforcement of voting rights laws
that address access to voting for language minority groups one of the
Voting Section's highest priorities. DOJ reported in a civil rights
accomplishments fact sheet that the Civil Rights Division conducted an
outreach campaign with state and local election officials and local
language minority groups to help ensure access to bilingual voting
materials for language minority groups. This was begun in July 2002
following the certification of covered jurisdictions based on the results
of the 2000 census.
o The fact sheet states that the outreach included a July 2002 letter
from the then-Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division to
each of the 296 political jurisdictions covered by Section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act notifying them of their bilingual access obligations in
the upcoming and future elections. According to the Civil Rights Division,
attorneys from the Division visited many of the 296 counties covered by
Section 203.
o In addition, the fact sheet reported that Civil Rights Division
attorneys conducted in-person meetings with state and local election
officials and local language minority groups in almost all of the more
than 80 newly covered jurisdictions.
Enclosure I
We analyzed data as of March 15, 2004, on matters and cases related to
Section 203 language minority issues recorded in DOJ's Interactive Case
Management (ICM) system, which is used to track and manage these data. We
found that the Voting Section initiated 7 matters and no cases in 2000, 13
matters and 2 cases in 2001, 94 matters and 1 case in 2002, and 28 matters
and no cases in 2003. According to the Civil Rights Division, the Division
also initiated the following cases: (1) two language assistance cases in
2002 under Section 2 and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act; (2) two
cases in 2003 under Section 2, Section 203, and Section 208 of the Voting
Rights Act; and (3) five cases in 2004 under Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act. Sections 2, 203, and 208 of the Voting Rights Act are
described in attachment I.
Enclosure I
Given the large number of troops deployed overseas and an increase in
concerns about late mailing of absentee ballots, Voting Section officials
said that the Voting Section placed increased priority in 2004 on
enforcing and preparing to ensure compliance with the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which only applies to
federal elections. These officials cited the following enforcement and
preparation activities during 2004.
o Obtained a court order in April for emergency relief to remedy an
UOCAVA violation committed during the Pennsylvania primary election.
o Negotiated with the state of Alabama in May to obtain a similar
emergency relief order from a state court for a county's failure to
provide enough time for the mailing to and return of ballots from overseas
voters for its primary election.
o Obtained a court order in an UOCAVA lawsuit in July against the state
of Georgia for similar emergency relief for its primary election.
o Established a working group of Voting Section attorneys to facilitate
communications with the Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance
Program, which is charged with administering UOCAVA, and to plan for the
possibility of more UOCAVA litigation during 2004.
Our analysis of matters and cases in DOJ's ICM system as of March 15,
2004, showed that the Voting Section initiated 3 matters and 2 cases
during calendar years 2000 through 2003 involving the issue of absentee
voting by uniformed and overseas citizens. All 5 of the matters and cases
were initiated in 2002.
Enclosure I
In October 2002, HAVA established the Election Assistance Commission to,
in part, serve as a national clearinghouse and resource to compile
information and review procedures related to federal election
administration and provide guidance on implementing certain HAVA
requirements. Because the Election Assistance Commission was not
established until December 2003, the Voting Section provided informal,
nonbinding guidance to states on implementing the requirements of HAVA.
The Voting Section's guidance to states on HAVA's requirements included
o interpreting requirements of the law and advising states on how to
comply with them based on DOJ's enforcement role under HAVA;
o responding to inquiries from state and local officials;
o making presentations at various meetings and conferences;
o writing letters to the chief state election official, governor, and
attorney general in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
the U.S. territories offering toassist the jurisdictions in their efforts
to ensure compliance with HAVA and summarizing HAVA provisions;
o creating a HAVA information page on its Web site; and
o issuing a press release that outlined provisions of HAVA that took
effect on January 1, 2004, such as provisional voting and identification
requirements for new voters who register by mail.
According to the Civil Rights Division, the Voting Section also filed its
first enforcement action in California in 2004 against a county for
violating the voter information provisions of HAVA.
Enclosure I
According to Voting Section officials, DOJ's plans for helping to ensure
voter access for the November 2004 election include
o increasing its on-site monitoring of elections considerably over prior
years through greater use of staff from other sections in the Civil Rights
Division. Voting Section officials also said that final decisions as to
where monitoring will be conducted are not made public until shortly
before an election, but they told us that the Voting Section has prepared
a list of jurisdictions for consideration based on consent decrees and
will update the list with other jurisdictions being considered for
coverage as the election approaches. According to these officials, the
Voting Section has not established a specific goal for achieving an
increase in staff or elections to be covered, and
o coordinating with civil rights organizations that will be monitoring
the election and establishing procedures for bringing their concerns about
specific issues or jurisdictions to DOJ on or before election day in
November 2004.
Enclosure I
Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations
Enclosure I
Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations
In our review, we found that the Civil Rights Division had formal
procedures to track matters and cases to address voting irregularities.
Specifically, the Voting Section tracks investigative matters and cases
through the Division's ICM system using unique identification numbers. In
addition, the Voting Section tracked telephone calls alleging voting
irregularities for the November 2000 and November 2002 elections using
telephone logs.
Voting Section attorneys addressed and assessed allegations of
election-related voting irregularities initiated from November 2000 to
December 2003 in various ways, depending on the allegation. Our review of
files related to 1 preliminary close investigation, 25 closed matters, and
8 open and closed cases generally found that attorneys contacted cognizant
officials and assessed the legal merits of evidence of alleged violations
of civil rights laws.
In our review of files, we found that Voting Section attorneys generally
addressed allegations of voting irregularities initiated from November
2000 to December 2003 through a preliminary investigation or investigative
matters and took actions such as interviewing election officials at state
and local levels, interviewing voters affected by alleged voting
irregularities, and meeting with civil rights groups.
Our review of Voting Section files also found that Voting Section
attorneys, in conjunction with supervisory attorneys, assessed information
collected and determined whether (1) federal voting rights laws were
violated; (2) an investigation should be closed; or (3) further action was
needed by the Voting Section, such as filing a complaint with a federal
court or continued monitoring.
Enclosure I
The ICM is a database system that the Voting Section uses to track and
manage matter and case data for the Section and can be used to generate
reports.
Each matter and case is assigned a DJ number, which is an unique
identification number. Information on matters and cases can be searched by
the identification numbers, statutes, and other information maintained in
the system.
The system is set up to automatically enter certain data and has required
fields for which data must be entered. Voting Section staff can enter
other data into the system, as appropriate.
Enclosure I
Officials told us that the Voting Section
o receives numerous citizen calls, comments, and questions daily;
o receives telephone calls, e-mails, faxes, letters, and packages. Most
of the calls and written allegations from citizens do not concern issues
within the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Division and, in such
instances, the caller is often notified of this determination over the
telephone and referred to other state or federal agencies with possible
jurisdiction;
o documented telephone calls received at the Section's toll free
telephone number using telephone logs for the 2000 and 2002 elections;
o found that only a small percentage of allegations that it received
following the November 2000 election fell within its jurisdiction or
presented substantive issues that merited further review. Notations on
logs documenting telephone calls related to the November 2000 election
indicated that some of the calls- we were unable to quantifythe number of
calls because of the way calls were recorded- were related to
dissatisfaction with the outcome of the election or other issues such as
general complaints about the election process that contained no specific
allegations of violations of federal laws;
o in addition to following up with people who called the Voting Section
after the November 2000 election, Voting Section staff pursued other
avenues of complaints, such as complaint logs generated by the NAACP Voter
Fund, hearings conducted bythe U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the
NAACP, and incidents receiving a large amount of publicity, to determine
if federal laws had been violated; and
o expects attorneys to find new matters for investigation in addition to
assignments made by Section management.
Enclosure I
Voting Section officials told us that on election day
o in addition to calls received by the Section at its toll-free number,
an OPM federal examiner maintains a toll-free telephone number to receive
calls. An examiner is a federal employee assigned by OPM to receive
complaints of racial or minority language discriminatory voting practices.
(See attach. I for the statute related to federal examiners.) Any
allegations taken by the examiner that are deemed to require immediate
attention are routed to the Civil Rights Division when received, while
other allegations are transmitted after the election and reviewed to
determine if further action is needed. According to the Chief of the
Voting Section, they received few, if any, allegations from examiners in
relation to the November 2000 election, and
o a small number of Civil Rights Division staff remain available at the
Voting Section on major election days to take citizen calls, with the vast
majority of Section staff at various locations around the country for
monitoring purposes. Major problems that arise from these calls are routed
to attorney supervisors to determine what actions are needed.
Our review of files included five matters that were initiated to monitor
elections. According to Voting Section officials, this activity is not
routinely tracked through the ICM, but they plan to designate a single
identification number to track this activity.
Enclosure I
The following presents information on the Voting Section's process for
addressing allegations related to voting irregularities.
o If the Voting Section deems that a voting allegation falls within its
jurisdiction and appears to have merit, an attorney is assigned to make
inquiries about the allegation. The attorney performs some investigative
work to determine whether the allegation should be pursued.
o If an attorney believes a matter should be investigated, the
attorneydiscusses this with the Deputy Chief responsible for the state in
which the matter rises. The Section Chief and Deputies decide whether or
not to formally open a matter. The Voting Section assigns a number to the
matter for tracking purposes.
o When Voting Section staff monitor elections and receive allegations of
or information about voting irregularities while on site, they make
efforts to resolve allegations by contacting local election officials
immediately. Further investigation of such irregularities is conducted
after an election if the allegation was not resolved on election day or if
it is deemed otherwise necessary to prevent such problems from arising in
the future.
Enclosure I
Our file review found that the Voting Section generally took the following
actions during its investigations initiated from November 2000 to December
2003:
o Interviewed state and county election officials, other state and county
officials who may provide insight into the investigation, state Attorneys
General, voters raising the allegations, and representatives from the
NAACP and other minority groups.
o Requested documentation detailing certain election procedures.
o Facilitated the resolution of allegations and issues that arose
duringelections, when monitoring elections. If Voting Section staff
monitoring elections received allegations about voting irregularities,
they immediately took steps to resolve the allegations by contactinglocal
election officials.
o Where deemed appropriate, filed enforcement actions in federal court
against jurisdictions that allegedly violated federal voting rightslaws by
either obtaining judgments against them or entering into consent decrees
with jurisdictions that agree to remedy their alleged violations of
federal voting statutes.
Enclosure I
Following the investigation of a preliminary investigation or matter, a
Voting Section attorney, in conjunction with a supervisor, determines
whether the allegation has merit, whether the preliminary investigation or
matter should be pursued further, or whether the preliminary investigation
or matter should be closed. The determination to close a matter or pursue
it as a case is a legal judgment and is often based on whether there is
deemed to be a sufficient evidence of violations of voting rights laws and
whether the state or local election officials have taken action to correct
problems.
The Voting Section identified a total of 34 closed investigations and open
and closed cases initiated between November 2000 and December 2003 that it
considered to involve election-related voting irregularities: 1 closed
preliminary investigation, 25 closed matters, and 8 open and closed cases.
The preliminary investigation was closed because the Voting Section
concluded that the allegation lacked merit.
Enclosure I
For the 25 closed matters:
o 13 were closed because the Voting Section concluded that the
allegations lacked merit;
o 5 were closed because the state or voting jurisdictions took actions to
resolve the issues (e.g., one state passed an election law, and the Voting
Section approved changes to election procedures that one city had
proposed);
o 4 were closed following the completion of elections, and the Voting
Section provided feedback or observations related to election procedures
while monitoring elections;
o 2 were closed because voting jurisdictions implemented changes for
future elections; and
o 1 was closed because a state court issued an order addressing the
issue.
For the 8 cases:
o 6 are open pending fulfillment of consent decrees entered into on
behalf of DOJ and the jurisdiction in alleged violation of statute, and
o 2 are closed because consent decrees entered into on behalf of DOJ and
the jurisdictions in alleged violation of statutes required states to take
corrective actions and states did so by passing legislation, among other
actions.
Attachment IV provides detailed information on the results of our file
review of the 34 closed preliminary investigation and matters and open and
closed cases initiated from November 2000 to December 2003 that the Voting
Section considered as involving election-related voting irregularities.
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls
In our review, we found that
o the Voting Section tracked telephone calls related to the November 2000
election by using telephone logs. Some logs had several broad categories
to capture the subject of the calls, rows for states from which the calls
originated and, for the most part, tabulated the numbers of calls using
tick marks. Other logs that the Voting Section used contained information
such as callers' names, telephone numbers, and descriptions of the calls.
The Voting Section improved upon the telephone log for the November 2002
election by including columns to record the action taken on each call in
addition to recording the caller's name and telephone number, but has one
column to capture the subject of the call, and
o as mentioned previously, the Voting Section tracked some monitoring of
elections by opening matters and assigning each matter an identification
number. According to Voting Section officials, it has not routinely
tracked election-monitoring activities through the case management
system but is considering assigning one identification number to track
election-monitoring activities.
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls November 2000 Election Telephone Logs
The Voting Section received an unprecedented volume of telephone calls in
November and December 2000 related to the unusual events surrounding the
November 2000 presidential election.
o The Voting Section reported to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
that it received approximately 11,000 calls related to the November 2000
election. In comparison, the Voting Section told us it received several
hundred calls related to the November 2002 election. The Voting Section
told us it does not have records of telephone calls related to other
elections except to the extent that such telephone calls generated
investigations that became matters or cases.
o According to the Voting Section, contractors were hired in November
2000 to help handle the unprecedented number of incoming telephone calls
received concerning the November 2000 election to help ensure that the
public would be able to voice opinions and concerns. Hiring contractors
was not intended as a mechanism to gather specific allegations.
o Voting Section staff and contractors kept telephone logs that consisted
of tables with columns identifying broad categories of allegations or
comments and rows with the state from which a call originated. Voting
Section staff also kept two other types of logs, which included the
caller's name, state, telephone number, and description of the call. Calls
were recorded on most logs as tick marks, while some logs included limited
narrative on the nature of the call.
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls November 2000 Election Telephone Logs
Our analysis of the telephone call logs completed by contractors found the
following:
o It was difficult to count how many calls were received because, for
example, one caller could have made multiple complaints and some logs
appeared to be duplicates.
o The call logs did not include a way to record calls from 4
states-Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota. According to Voting
Section officials, these 4 states were left off the contractor logs
inadvertently, although these officials noted that they were unaware of
any calls received from these states. Our analysis found that Voting
Section staff recorded having received calls from some of these states.
o Columns that were used to record callers were labeled voter fraud,
irregularities, request investigation, re-vote, and general comments. In
some of the logs, the columns were re-labeled manually to tally additional
types of comments. The broad nature of these column labels to record
information about the nature of the calls and the limited narrative
sometimes included on logs did not always provide sufficient information
to determine whether the Voting Section should initiate an investigation.
o The telephone logs did not include information on callers' contact
information such as telephone numbers.
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls November 2000 Election Telephone Logs
Some of the telephone logs that Voting Section and contractor staff
completed included comments indicating allegations that people may have
been prevented from voting. According to the Voting Section, Voting
Section personnel reviewed logs on an ongoing basis and efforts were made
to contact callers who provided telephone numbers and whose messages
indicated possible violations of federal civil rights statutes. The Voting
Section does not have records indicating how many such return calls were
made and noted that return telephone contact information was not always
provided or asked for.
According to Voting Section officials, an assessment of the calls led them
to determine that most of the calls focused on concerns about the election
situation in Florida, often from citizens in states other than Florida,
and that few allegations included substantive information about possible
violations of federal law. However, the information on the November 2000
telephone logs is not precise enough to document this assessment.
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls November 2002 Election Telephone Logs
For the November 2002 federal election, the Voting Section assigned staff
to receive calls; provided instructions for how to handle calls from
citizens, the press, members of Congress, and others; and provided state
contact information to refer callers to state officials, when appropriate.
According to Voting Section officials, a telephone log was used to record
calls received. The telephone log included columns to record time of call;
caller information for name, city, state, and telephone number; subject;
and action. No instructions were provided with the telephone log about how
to complete it regarding the type of information to be included in the
subject or action columns.
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls
According to the Civil Rights Division, the Voting Section plans to ensure
that it has full capability to receive and respond, as appropriate, to all
calls related to the November 2004 general election in the most
expeditious way possible. Division officials further stated that the
Voting Section has procedures in place to track and respond to telephone
calls that it might receive in relation to the November 2004 general
election.
o Specifically, the Civil Rights Division told us that the Voting Section
plans to use a telephone log such as the one used for the November 2002
election to record information on the caller's name, time of call, city
and state, telephone number, subject of the call, and action taken on the
call. The Division noted that the November 2002 log or any log that the
Voting Section might use for the November 2004 election is a tool to
ensure that the Voting Section does not miss calls raising important
concerns over which it has jurisdiction and is not intended to
definitively track all election-related allegations received.
Enclosure I
Assessment of Internal Controls
The Civil Rights Division also cited other procedures that the Voting
Section plans to use to track and respond to possible telephone calls
related to the November 2004 general election. These procedures will
include the Voting Section
o continuing its practice of assigning its staff to specific states for
the purpose of reviewing citizen calls and letters;
o keeping a sufficient number of staff and supervisory attorneys in
headquarters on election day to handle calls and to respond to allegations
referred from Voting Section staff monitoring elections in the field on
that day; and
o using contractors, if needed, to take telephone calls. The Division
plans to determine the need to use contractors on a case-by-case basis.
Enclosure I
Conclusions and Recommendations
Enclosure I
Internal Controls
o The Voting Section received an unprecedented number of calls related to
the November 2000 election and took steps to document telephone calls.
According to the Voting Section, it also documented calls for the November
2002 election for which far fewer calls were received. The 2000 and 2002
election telephone logs differed somewhat in format, and improvements were
made regarding how information was collected on the 2002 election
telephone log. The Voting Section did not provide written instructions to
contractors in November 2000 about how to complete the logs, but did
provide written instructions to DOJ staff on completing some of the
information for the 2002 logs. However, both logs lack precision for
documenting the nature of the call and actions taken because broad
categories were used to capture information on the call.
Enclosure I
Internal Controls
o Predictions of another close presidential election in November 2004,
possible voter confusion over new requirements in the Help America Vote
Act, and possible questions regarding voting equipment could result in the
Voting Section again receiving a large number of telephone calls and
possibly result in the use of contractors to handle calls since most of
the Voting Section staff are monitoring election sites on election day. If
the Voting Section collects more precise information about such calls, it
is in a better position to assure the public that it addressed allegations
of voting irregularities; if it documents actions taken more precisely, it
is better able to reassure the public and Congress of its commitment to
enforce federal voting rights statutes.
o The Voting Section has emphasized the importance of its monitoring of
election day activities, yet the monitoring program has not been routinely
tracked in the ICM system, its formal process for tracking and managing
work activities. Voting Section officials told us they were considering
tracking this program in the future, and we believe the significance of
this program warrants a more formal tracking of monitoring efforts and
resources dedicated to the program.
Enclosure I
Confidence in election processes is of utmost importance. To help ensure
confidence in the integrity of our voting processes, the Voting Section
plays an important role in addressing voting irregularities. By accurately
recording and documenting its activities in as clear a manner as possible,
the Voting Section contributes to assuring the public and Congress of the
integrity of our voting processes.
To reassure citizens of the integrity of our election processes and to
reassure the public and Congress of DOJ's commitment to its responsibility
to enforce federal voting rights statutes, we recommend that the Assistant
Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division direct the Chief of the
Voting Section to
o develop and implement procedures for the November 2004 election to
ensure that the Voting Section has a reliable method of tracking and
documenting allegations of voting irregularities and actions taken to
address them. Procedures could include more precise categories for
recording types of allegations, more precise categories to record actions
taken, development of instructions on completing the telephone logs, and
development and implementation of training for contractors, should they be
needed, and
o implement a method to track and report on election monitoring program
activities in the Interactive Case Management system.
Attachment I
Voting Laws Enforced by the Voting Section Relevant to Contents of
Briefing and Its Attachments
According to the Voting Section, to carry out its mission, the Voting
Section brings lawsuits against states, counties, cities, and other
jurisdictions to remedy denials and abridgements of the right to vote;
defends lawsuits that the Voting Rights Act authorizes to be brought
against the Attorney General; reviews changes in voting laws and
procedures administratively under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and
monitors election day activities through the assignment of federal
observers under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. Provided below are
short descriptions of some of the primary voting laws enforced by the
Voting Section.
Voting Rights Act Provisions
o Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S: 1973)
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act establishes a nationwide ban against
any state or local election practices or procedures that deny or abridge a
citizen's right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a
language minority group.4 The Voting Rights Act provides that plaintiffs
may establish a violation of Section 2 by demonstrating that "the
political processes leading to nomination or election" deny members of the
protected classes an equal opportunity to participate in the political
process and to elect representatives of their choice. A court, under the
Voting Rights Act, may also consider the extent to which members of the
protected class have been elected to office in the jurisdiction, though
Congress made clear that Section 2 does not confer upon protected classes
a right to proportional representation.
o Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S:S:
1973aa-1a, 1973b(f)(4))
Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) are the language minority provisions of the
Voting Rights Act and require certain covered jurisdictions to provide
bilingual election materials and assistance based on census data
pertaining to the population of citizens of voting age with limited
English proficiency and their rate of illiteracy. With respect to Section
203, the Voting Rights Act requires jurisdictions to provide language
minority assistance when certain criteria are met, such as when more than
5 percent of the citizens of voting age or more than 10,000 of the
citizens of voting age are members of a single language minority group,
and are unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to
participate in the electoral process.
4 42 U.S.C. S:S: 1973, 1973b(f)(2).
Attachment I
o Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S: 1973aa-6)
Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act authorizes voting assistance for
blind, disabled, or illiterate persons. A voter who requires assistance to
vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may
be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice, other than the
voter's employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the
voter's union.
o Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S: 1973c)
Under Section 5 of the Act, "covered" 5 jurisdictions may not change their
election practices or procedures until they obtain federal "preclearance"
for the change. The act provides for either judicial or administrative
preclearance. Under the judicial mechanism, covered jurisdictions may seek
declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia that the change has neither the purpose nor the
effect of discriminating against protected minorities in exercising their
voting rights. Under the administrative mechanism, covered jurisdictions
may seek the same determination from the Attorney General. The Attorney
General may deny preclearance by interposing and objection to the proposed
change within 60 days of its submission.
o Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S: 1973d)
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act provides for the appointment of federal
examiners by order of a federal court or, with respect to certain covered
jurisdictions, upon certification by the Attorney General. Federal
examiners help to register voters by determining whether a citizen meets
state eligibility requirements and must therefore be included in the
registration rolls. A federal court, under the Voting Rights Act, may
order the appointment of federal examiners to any jurisdiction sued under
any statute to enforce certain constitutional voting guarantees.6 In
covered jurisdictions, the Attorney General may appoint examiners upon
certification that the Attorney General has received at least 20
meritorious written complaints of voting discrimination or that the
Attorney General otherwise believes that the appointment of examiners is
necessary to protect voting rights.
5 The jurisdictions targeted for "coverage" are those evidencing
discriminatory voting practices, based
upon a triggering formula, as defined in Section 4 of the Voting Rights
Act (42 U.S.C. 1973b). The
Attorney General and the Director of the Census have responsibility for
determining which
jurisdictions are covered by the triggering formula, and their
determinations are not reviewable in any
court and are effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
6 See also, section 3 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S: 1973a).
Attachment I
o Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S: 1973f)
Under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, federal observers may be
appointed, upon request of the Attorney General, in any jurisdiction where
an examiner is serving. Federal observers are to monitor elections and
report whether persons entitled to vote were allowed to vote and whether
their votes were properly counted.
o Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. S: 1973i(b)
Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act prohibits persons, whether acting
under color of law or not, from intimidating, threatening, or coercing, or
attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce, any person for voting or
attempting to vote. Section 11(b) further prohibits intimidation, threats,
or coercion of those persons aiding other persons in voting or exercising
certain powers or duties under the Act.
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C.
S:S: 1973ff to 1973ff-6)
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA),
in general, requires states and territories to allow absent uniformed
service voters, their spouses and dependents, and certain other overseas
voters to register and vote absentee in elections for federal office.
UOCAVA requires, for example, that a presidential designee prescribe a
federal write-in absentee ballot for all overseas voters in federal
elections. The ballot is to be used if the overseas voter applies for, but
does not receive, a state absentee ballot.7 While state law, in general,
governs the processing of these federal write-in ballots, UOCAVA requires
that states permit their
8
use in federal elections.
National Voter Registration Act (42 U.S.C. S:S: 1973gg to 1973gg-10)
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) established procedures
designed to "increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote
in elections Federal office," while protecting "the integrity of the
electoral process" and ensuring the maintenance of "accurate and current
voter registration rolls."9 NVRA requires all states to adopt certain
federal voter registration procedures, except for those states that have
no registration requirements or that permit election-day registration with
respect to federal elections.10 NVRA, for example, requires states to
allow applicants for driver's licenses to register to vote on the same
form.11 NVRA also requires states
7 42 U.S.C. S: 1973ff-2(a). 8 Id. S: 1973ff-1(3). 9 42 U.S.C. S: 1973gg.
10 42 U.S.C. S: 1973gg-2. 11 Id. S: 1973gg-3(a).
Attachment I
to provide voter registration forms and accept completed applications at
various state agencies, including any office in the state providing public
assistance, any office in the state that provides state-funded disability
programs, and other agencies chosen by the state, such as state licensing
bureaus, county clerks' offices, public schools and public libraries.12
NVRA also contains detailed requirements regarding state
13
removal of names from federal registration rolls.
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. S:S: 1973ee to 1973ee-6)
Congress has passed legislation intended to improve access for elderly and
handicapped individuals to registration facilities and polling places for
federal elections. The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act of 1984 requires, with some exceptions, that political
subdivisions within each state that are responsible for conducting
elections assure that polling places and registration sits are accessible
to handicapped and elderly voters.14 If the political subdivision is
unable to provide an accessible polling place, it must provide an
alternative means for casting a ballot on election day upon advance
request by the voter.15 The act's requirements also include, for example,
that each state or political subdivision provide a reasonable number of
accessible permanent registration facilities, and that each state make
available certain types of voting and registration aids such as largetype
instructions and information by telecommunication devices for the deaf.16
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. S:S: 12131 to
12134) (enforced by the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights
Division)
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination
against qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs,
activities, and services of public entities. It applies to all state and
local governments, their departments and agencies, and any other
instrumentalities or special purpose districts of State and local
governments. According to the Voting Section, as construed by the courts,
Title II requires that polling places be accessible to persons with
disabilities with certain exceptions.
Help America Vote Act (42 U.S.C. S:S: 15301 to 15545)
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), among other things, established
a program to provide funds to states to replace punch care voting systems,
established the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the
administration of federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance
with the administration of certain
12 Id. S:S: 1973gg-5(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)(A)(i).
13 Id. S: 1973gg-6(b).
14 42 U.S.C. S:S: 1973ee to 1973ee-6.
15 Id. S: 1973ee-1(b)(2)(ii).
16 Id. S: 1973ee-2, 1973ee-3.
Attachment I
federal election laws and programs, and established minimum election
administration standards for States and units of local government with
responsibility for the administration of federal elections. Certain HAVA
provisions including those relating to voting system standards,
provisional voting and voting information requirements, and computerized
statewide voter registration lists are to be enforced by the Attorney
General.17
17 42 U.S.C. S: 15511.
Attachment II
Role of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section in Federal
Elections
The Public Integrity Section (PIN), in conjunction with the 93 U. S.
Attorneys and the FBI, is responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws
applicable to federal election fraud offenses, among other things.
Election fraud is conduct that corrupts the electoral processes for: (1)
obtaining, marking, or tabulating ballots; (2) canvassing and certifying
election results; or (3) registering voters. Election fraud can be
committed with or without the participation of voters. Examples of
election fraud that does not involve voter participation are ballot box
stuffing, ghost voting, and "nursing home" frauds. Examples of election
fraud that involves, at least to some extent, voter participation are vote
buying schemes, absentee ballot fraud, voter intimidation schemes,
migratory-voting or floating-voter schemes, and voter "assistance" fraud
in which the voters' wishes are ignored or not sought. According to a PIN
official, its attorneys spend about 10 percent of their time on election
fraud investigations and trials.
PIN is also responsible for overseeing the U.S. Attorneys' and the FBI's
investigation and prosecution of federal election fraud, one of the most
common types of alleged federal election crimes. PIN's oversight entails
(1) advising investigators and prosecutors on the application of federal
criminal laws to election crimes, (2) reviewing all major election crime
investigations and all proposed election crime charges, and (3) assisting
with implementing DOJ's District Election Officer (DEO) program. Under the
DEO program, PIN asks each of the 93 U.S. Attorneys to appoint an
Assistant U.S. Attorney to serve a 2-year term as a DEO and provides
training and guidance to DEOs on carrying out their responsibilities.
DEOs, whose responsibilities are performed in conjunction with their other
responsibilities, are to
o screen and conduct preliminary investigations of complaints, in
conjunction with the FBI and PIN, to determine whether they constitute
potential election crimes and should become matters for investigation; o
oversee the investigation and prosecution of election fraud and other
election
crimes in their districts; o coordinate their district's (investigative
and prosecutorial) efforts with DOJ headquarters prosecutors;
o coordinate election matters with state and local election and law
enforcement officials and make them aware of their availability to assist
with election-related matters;
o issue press releases to the public announcing the names and telephone
numbers of DOJ and FBI officials to contact on election day with
complaints about voting or election irregularities and answer telephones
on election day to receive these complaints; and
o supervise a team of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and FBI special agents
who are appointed to handle election-related allegations while the polls
are open on election day.
Attachment II
Our analysis of information from PIN on election fraud matters showed that
U.S. Attorneys and PIN attorneys initiated a total of 61 election fraud
matters, or investigations, related to election years 2000 through 2003.
Most of the 61 matters related to elections held in 2002. Matters were
initiated in 28 states and 1 U.S. territory (the U.S. Virgin Islands) and
ranged from 1 to 7 matters per state/territory over the 4-year period. The
most frequent allegations of election fraud were for absentee ballot fraud
and vote buying. According to PIN, many of these matters resulted in
indictments and subsequent convictions.
According to the Criminal Division, the information provided by PIN does
not include all election fraud investigations that the U.S. Attorneys have
initiated because (1) U. S. Attorneys are not required to consult with PIN
for preliminary investigations as opposed to grand jury investigations,
which require consultation; (2) PIN did not track election fraud
investigations prior to October 2002; and (3) election fraud
investigations are sometimes initiated under non-election statutes.
Attachment III
Election Jurisdictions Monitored during Calendar Years 2000 through 2003
Table 1: Attorney General-Certified Election Jurisdictions Monitored
during Calendar Years 2000 through 2003
Election jurisdictions monitored during
State 2000 2001 2002 2003
Hale County Hale County
Selma
(Dallas Chambers
County)a County
Lowndes
County
Apache
Arizona County Apache County
Navajo
County Navajo County
Randolph Randolph
County a County
Brooks
Georgia County
Sumter
County
Twiggs
County
Louisiana Tensas
Parish
Aberdeen Clarksdale Greenville
(Monroe (Coahoma County) Adams County (Washington
County)a b County)
Bolivar Isola (Humphreys Amite County Humphreys
County County) County
Grenada Centreville Noxubee
County Macon (Noxubee (Wilkinson County a
County) County)
Neshoba Sunflower Drew Neshoba
County (Sunflower (Sunflower County
Mississippi County) County)
Newton
County Newton County
Kemper County
Vicksburg (Warren Leake County
County) a
Webb
(Tallahatchie Jones County
County)
Winston
County
Kings
County Kings County Kings County
New York New York New York
County New York County County
Bronx County
Marion Ridgeville Ridgeville
South Carolina County a (Dorchester (Dorchester
County) County) a
Irving
Texas (Dallas Irving (Dallas Titus County
County) County)
Total 19 11 13 9
jurisdictions
Source: GAO's analysis of election monitoring data provided by DOJ's
Voting Section.
aElections were monitored by DOJ attorneys and professional staff only,
not OPM federal observers. bThree elections were held in Clarksdale
(Coahoma County), Mississippi, in calendar year 2001. Only DOJ attorneys
and professional staff monitored one of the three elections, held on June
5, 2001. For the remaining two elections held that year, DOJ attorneys and
professional staff accompanied OPM observers in monitoring the elections.
Attachment III
Table 2: Court-Ordered Election Jurisdictions Monitored during Calendar
Years 2000 through 2003
Election jurisdictions monitored during
State 2000 2001 2002 2003
California Alameda County
a
Illinois Cicero (Cook Cicero (Cook
County) County)b
Louisiana c c c c
City of City of City of
Michigan Hamtramck City of Hamtramck Hamtramck Hamtramck
Passaic Passaic
New Jersey Passaic County Passaic County County County d
Bernalillo Bernalillo
County County
Cibola County Cibola County
New Mexico Sandoval Sandoval
County County
Socorro
Socorro County County
Reading Reading
Pennsylvania Reading (Berks (Berks (Berks
County) b County)b County)
Utah San Juan San Juan
County e County e
Total 8 4 8 4
jurisdictions
Source: GAO's analysis of election monitoring data provided by DOJ's
Voting Section.
aThe court order for Alameda County, California, was in effect until
January 22, 2001.
bElections were monitored by DOJ attorneys and professional staff only,
not OPM federal observers.
cA court order for St. Landry Parish was entered into on December 5, 1979.
Data from the Voting Section shows
that as of August 26, 2003, the court order was still in effect and that
no elections were monitored at this parish
during calendar years 2000 through 2003.
dFour elections were held in Passaic County, New Jersey, in calendar year
2003. Only DOJ attorneys and
professional staff monitored one of the four elections, held on May 13,
2003. For the remaining three elections
held that year, DOJ attorneys and professional staff accompanied OPM
observers in monitoring the elections.
eThe court order for San Juan County, Utah, was in effect until December
31, 2002.
Attachment III
Table 3: Other Election Jurisdictions Monitored during Calendar Years 2000
through 2003
Page 70
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
Brentwood
Union Kenedy
San Atlanta Baker Tangipahoa St. St. St. New New San New Queens Queens New Suffolk Suffolk Free South Bexar ISD Harris Comal Moore
Election State 2000 2001 2002 2003 California Francisco Connecticut Waterbury Florida Georgia (Fulton Hawaii Louisiana St. (East Parish Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Louis Louis Louis Jersey Mexico Juan York County County York County County School Ohio Maple Carolina Texas Forth County (Karnes County County County 5 9 19 13
jurisdictions County San (New Century County) Martinville Baton Winnsboro Lawrence Lawrence Flint County a City District Heights Worth County) Seagraves
monitored Francisco Haven Osceola Osceola Duval Duval Miami-Dade Miami-Dade (Escambia Orange Broward Putnam Honolulu Jefferson (St. Martin Rouge (Franklin (Essex (Essex (Genesee Hudson Middlesex McKinley (Queens (Suffolk (Cuyahoga Marion (Tarrant (Gaines Guadalupe Total
during County County) County County County County County County County) County County County County Kentucky County Parish) Parish) Parish) County) County) County) County County Countya County) County) County) County County) County) County jurisdictions
Source: GAO's analysis of election monitoring data provided by DOJ's
Voting Section.
Note: DOJ attorneys and professional staff monitored the election
jurisdictions shown in this table unless otherwise noted.
aOPM federal observers also monitored elections in these counties even
though the counties are not under Attorney General-certification or court
order.
Attachment IV Summaries of Election-Related Preliminary Investigation,
Matters, and Cases Initiated from November 2000 to December 2003
Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Case Initiated during November or
December 2000
No. Matter/Case Jurisdiction Date matter initiated DJ No.
1 Matter Florida December 2000 No a
2 Matter Hillsborough County, November 2000 No a
Florida
3 Matter Palm Beach County, November 2000 Yes
Florida
4 Matter Several counties in November 2000 Yes
Florida
5 Matter DeKalb County, Georgia December 2000 Yes
6 Matter Gwinnett County, Georgia November 2000 Yes
7 Case St. Louis, Missouri November 2000 (case filed Yes
in August 2002)
Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division.
a For the matters that the Voting Section initiated in Florida after the
2000 election, the Voting Section initially used a general DJ number for
all work on investigations and inquiries related to the Florida election.
This number was opened in November 2000. Subsequently, the Voting Section
assigned separate DJ numbers for individual matters. The 2000 matters in
Florida and Hillsborough County, Florida, were inadvertently not given an
individual
DJ number.
Summary of Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Case Initiated during
November or December 2000
Page 71
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
Interviews
by Voting
Section
staff with
individuals
1. The Voting mentioned in
Section the
received a complaints
large number did not
of complaints reveal a Florida
alleging that distinct enacted
Florida voters pattern of election
arrived at the registration reform
polls problems in legislation in
expecting to any one 2001
be properly Florida requiring,
registered to county among other
vote, but were sufficient things, that
told that to warrant the state
their names litigation, implement a
were not on Voting Section but taken as statewide
the voter staff contacted a whole the voter
rolls. Some individuals registration registration
people who mentioned in complaints database,
tried to vote complaints that seemed to permit
but whose the NAACP had indicate provisional
names were not forwarded to general voting, and
on the voter determine the problems provide funds
rolls were nature of their with the to counties
often told to alleged state of for voter
stand in registration compliance education and
Description another line problems. Voting with NVRA poll worker
based on Disposition so election Section staff provisions training. The
Voting by Voting officials monitored for clarity Voting Section
Section Section could be election-related and reviewed this
information called to hearings and processing law under
verify their lawsuits in of voter Section 5 of
registrations, Florida to see registration the Voting
but many what steps the forms, Rights Act and
voters alleged state was going transmission precleared it
that office to take. The of the forms on March 28,
phones were Voting Section to election 2002. With
busy all day reviewed officials, respect to
and election reform education of this
registrations legislation that registration investigation,
could not be Florida enacted personnel, the Voting
verified. Some in 2001. adherence to Section noted
voters NVRA that these
apparently registration reforms should
left and some deadlines, help address
remained at maintenance the problems
the polls of alleged to
until they registration have occurred
closed, at lists, in 2000. While
which time ability to the Voting
they were verify Section
apparently registration further noted
told they at the that the
could not vote polls, and
because the education of
polls were voters,
closed. state
Voting registration
Section's Voting personnel,
actions Section's election
taken to assessment officials,
address of and poll
allegation allegations workers.
Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV
Page 72
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
new state
legislation did not
appear specifically
to address all the
NVRA-related issues,
such as the voter
registration process
and education of
motor vehicle agency
and other state
agency employees
regarding state
registration
procedures and
requirements in
federal law, such
issues could be
addressed through
design and
implementation of
the forthcoming
election procedures
to carry out the
requirements of the
new law. Therefore,
the Voting Section
determined that it
would monitor
Florida's NVRA
actions in the
future in light of
the new state
legislation and
ongoing federal
legislative efforts
in election reform
which might also
impact Florida's Voting
election procedures. Section The
The Voting Section staff met sheriff's
closed the matter 2. The NAACP with, among office The Voting
because, based on National Voter others, reported Section
its monitoring of Fund alleged officials that the closed the
the situation and (1) that on from the presence of matter
the provisions in Election Day county sheriff's because
the state law 2000, sheriff's sheriff's deputies the
pertinent to deputies in office and near the complaint
registration that marked cars in several polling lacked
had been precleared, Hillsborough local place was merit
it concluded that County, residents, related to since
the problems which Florida, and spoke a burglary there was
occurred in the 2000 blocked access with a poll nearby. One no
election were being to a polling watcher to of the evidence
adequately place, (2) that gather sheriff's on any of
addressed. their presence additional deputies the
Page 73
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
4. Four The Voting
state Section's
troopers investigation
with the revealed that
Florida the Florida
learned two Department Highway Patrol
days after of Highway had set up a
the election Safety and traffic check
that the Motor stop close to a
same man who Vehicles polling place
had ran a (about a mile
approached driver's away) located in
the deputies license a predominantly
on Election checkpoint The Voting African-American
had an Day returned on Section opened a neighborhood.
intimidating to the 3. It was The Voting Election matter to The Voting
effect on polling alleged Section Day 2000 investigate this Section
voters, and (3) place and that the opened a in Leon issue and asked investigation The Voting
that at least on successfully design of matter County, the Florida also indicated Section
one occasion voted. A the related to The Voting The Voting Florida. State Office of that the closed the
they harassed a poll worker butterfly this issue Section Section This the Attorney troopers' matter
voter. An observed the ballot in and reviewed determined concluded checkpoint General about traffic stop because
African-American presence of allegations Palm federal law that there that because was the checkpoint plan had not there was no
man approached observations. the raised. Beach for which was no basis it had no located in Leon County. been preapproved evidence of
sheriff's sheriff's County, the Section for asserting jurisdiction near A Voting Section by their intimidation
deputies after cars around Florida, had federal concerning (about a attorney also commander, as is or racial
they left the the same violated enforcement jurisdiction. this matter, mile from) spoke with an the standard intent to
scene of a time they federal authority to no further a voting African-American procedure. affect or
burglary were voting determine if action was precinct. voter who was Further intimidate
complaining that responding rights any action warranted. Another stopped at one investigation voters.
he was not to the laws. was In addition, checkpoint of the driver's revealed that
allowed to vote. burglary, appropriate. according to was held license the traffic
and observed the Voting in Bay and checkpoints. checkpoint was
that no Section, the Escambia in effect for
voter had new Florida Counties. about 3 hours,
been election According and a higher
deterred reform law to a number of white
from voting should help highway drivers were
due to the to alleviate patrol stopped than
police faulty official, African-American
activity. ballot this drivers.
design by checkpoint According the
providing was not Voting Section,
for greater located an
oversight of near a African-American
ballot voting voter who was
design. precinct.
Page 74
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
The Voting
Section
attorney's
analysis of the
A Voting Section documents that
attorney met DeKalb County
with the provided
following in revealed that
Georgia to most of the
address these county's polling
concerns: (1) places that
the DeKalb stayed open past
County Elections closing time
Supervisor, (2) were located in
the Chairman of majority
the DeKalb African-American The county
County Elections precincts. The implemented
Board, (3) the polls' extended the
Gwinnett County hours almost following
Elections uniformly changes for
Supervisor, (4) resulted from the March
the president of there being 2001
5. A U.S. the DeKalb large numbers of election:
Representative County NAACP, people in line (1)
raised concerns (5) the as well as increased
regarding long Assistant DeKalb insufficient the number
voting delays in County Attorney, numbers of poll of voting
predominantly and (6) one of workers and machines,
African-American the voting machines. (2)
precincts in representative's The attorney assigned
DeKalb County, staff members. also determined additional
Georgia during The Voting that there had poll
the November Section attorney been no unequal workers and
2000 election. received and division of managers,
It was alleged reviewed electoral (3)
that there were documents from resources assigned at
no corresponding both counties' between majority least 10
delays in elections white and additional
majority white departments majority staff
precincts. In regarding the African-American members to
one November 2000 precincts. answer
stopped was predominantly election. The According to telephones
treated African-American Voting Section investigations at the
courteously precinct, attorney of the November Elections
and several hundred requested 2000 election by Department
proceeded voters additional the county's and
to vote apparently left documents from elections installed
without the precinct the Assistant department, the 10 more
incident. without voting DeKalb County area manager and telephone
after waiting in Attorney and his assistants lines, and
line for several DeKalb County at the main (4) gave
hours. In Elections precinct of the
districts with a Supervisor to concern failed Elections
majority of determine if to contact the Department
white residents, there was an precinct office and area
voting lines unequal division about the long managers
apparently moved of resources lines and cell phones
quickly with among insufficient in case
some people African-American voting machines. regular
being able to and white The former area telephone
vote in less districts. These manager also lines were
than 15 minutes. documents denied the poll busy. The
In addition, two outlined the workers' Voting
people budget for requests for Section
complained about expenses related additional determined
possible voting to the elections voting machines, that a
irregularities from 1998 stating none dramatic
during a March through 2000. were available. improvement
2001 election. The Voting The president of resulted
Section attorney the DeKalb from these
also spoke with County NAACP, remedial
the president of staff in the actions
the DeKalb office of the and, as a
County NAACP and U.S. Attorney result,
the U.S. for the Northern closed the
Attorney for the District of matter.
Northern Georgia, and the
District of DeKalb County
Georgia. The Elections
Voting Section Supervisor did
attorney spoke not receive
with the two complaints
persons alleging related to
fraud during the Election Day in
March 2001 DeKalb County.
election. With respect to
the March 2001
allegations, the
Voting Section
attorney noted
that the two
Page 75
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
The Voting
Section's
investigation
revealed that
6. The Voting the problem
Section received likely arose
information that from the DPS
people in paperless
Gwinnett County, system to
Georgia who had obtain and
registered to renew a
vote via the driver's
Georgia license. The
Department of process seemed
Public Safety to result in
(DPS) were not people
on the voter believing they
persons could registration The Voting had been The Voting
not identify rolls and were Section spoke registered to Section closed
the precincts not allowed to with staff in vote when they the matter in
where alleged vote. DPS the Georgia had not. A April 2002
irregularities operated vehicle Attorney person who mostly because
occurred, and registration General's office indicated the the state had
that they did sites in and the Georgia intention to created a new
not have Georgia. DPS and DMV, a register to agency, the The Voting The consent
allegations of Subsequently, voter who raised vote did not Department of Section order gives
racial DPS began the the allegations, receive any Motor Vehicle alleged court
intimidation process of and the Deputy confirmation at Safety, to that the jurisdiction
or vote transitioning Director of the time of the which state was over the
suppression. National Voter Elections in the transaction. responsibility in proceeding
The Voting Registration Act Secretary of The Voting for voter violation until
Section (NVRA) State's Office. Section's registration of NVRA January 31,
attorney responsibilities The Voting investigation was in the and filed 2005. The
determined to the state's Section revealed that process of a consent
that their newly created monitored the since DPS being complaint. order
complaints Department of transition of implemented a transitioned.
seemed to Motor Vehicles NVRA paperless The Voting
concern (DMV). It was responsibilities system in 1996, Section
Georgia state alleged that from DPS to the the percentage determined
law, suggested voters were new DMV from of those who this system
that they turned away from April 2001 to registered to would remedy
explore their the polls and April 2002. vote at DPS the problem.
state law were not offered sites when they
remedies, provisional applied or
suggested that ballots. Some renewed their
they contact voters were told licenses had 7. DOJ, on
the county to go to the dropped almost behalf of the
elections county every year. United States, Following an
department and registration There was also alleged that investigation,
the office of office, but evidence that the St. Louis DOJ filed a
Georgia's officials there DPS officials Board of complaint with
Secretary of told them they knew of Election the U.S.
State, and were not allowed concerns Commissioners' District Court
asked them to to vote. regarding the (referred to in the Eastern
keep the agency's hereafter as District of
Voting Section paperless the Board) Missouri on
attorney registration placement of August 14,
informed of system from its eligible 2002. On the
developments. implementation. voters on same date,
Page 76
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
inactive status, when combined
with election-day procedures that
inactive voters were required to
follow to restore their active
voter status and vote during the
November 2000 and March 2001
elections, constituted a removal
of those voters from the voter
registration rolls in violation
of Section 8 of NVRA. As of the
November 2000 general election, requires the Board to
more than 54,000 registered initiate procedures to
voters in St. Louis had been remedy the problems that
designated as inactive and occurred during the
excluded from the lists of November 2000 election,
eligible voters following a such as improved methods
series of mail canvasses that the of notifying voters who
Board conducted of its voter are moved to an inactive
registration rolls. These mail status, improved methods
canvasses did not include the of canvassing, and
notices required by Section improved resources to
8(d)(2) of NVRA. The Board did process eligible voters
not make an effort to notify DOJ entered not included on the rolls
inactive voters that their into a on Election Day. This
registration status had changed, consent order relief included requiring
that their names would not appear with the city that every polling place
on the voter registration lists, of St. Louis. have a complete list of
or that they would face more registered voters,
administrative efforts on including inactive
election day before being voters, and a polling
permitted to vote. As a result, place locator to assist
certain eligible, but inactive voters in finding their
voters, were not able to vote in correct precincts. The
the November 2000 general consent decree is valid
election and March 2001 municipal until January 31, 2005.
primary election due to the lack The case remains open to
of an adequate infrastructure monitor implementation of
(i.e., insufficient phone lines, the consent order.
working telephones, and staff) in
place to enable voters to
complete the verification
procedures required by the Board
on election day. For the November
2000 election, over 300 eligible
inactive voters were able to
obtain authorization to vote
after going to the Board's
headquarters as instructed by the
election judges.
Attachment IV
Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Cases Initiated during Calendar
Year 2001
No. Matter/Case Jurisdiction Date matter initiated DJ No.
1 Matter Florida March 2001b Yes
2 Matter Florida June 2001b Yes
3 Matter Florida June 2001b Yes
4 Matter Florida August 2001b No c
5 Matter Broward County, October 2001 b Yes
Florida
6 Matter Miami-Dade County, June 2001 b Yes
Florida
7 Matter Miami-Dade County, June 2001 b Yes
Florida
8 Matter (election New York, New York July 2001 Yes
monitoring)
9 Matter Georgetown County, April 2001 Yes
South Carolina
10 Matter Seagraves, Texas July 2001 Yes
11 Case Miami-Dade County, March 2001 (case filed Yes
Florida in June 2002) b
12 Case Orange County, Florida June 2001 (case filed Yes
in June 2002) b
13 Case Osceola County, June 2001 (case filed Yes
Florida in June 2002) b
14 Case Berks County, March 2001 (case filed Yes
Pennsylvania in February 2003)
15 Case Tennessee April 2001 (case filed Yes
in September 2002)
Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division.
b Each of these Florida matters was initiated in the period shortly after
the November 2000 election-i.e., in November or December 2000-and was
reported under the general DJ number for Florida discussed previously (see
note a under the summary table for November and December 2000 and note c
below). The above dates are the dates they received individual DJ numbers.
For the matters that the Voting Section initiated in Florida after the
2000 election, the Voting Section initially used a general DJ number for
all work on investigations and inquiries related to the Florida election.
This number was opened in November 2000. Subsequently, the Voting Section
assigned separate DJ numbers for individual matters. The 2000 matters in
Florida and Hillsborough County, Florida, were inadvertently not given an
individual
DJ number.
Attachment IV
Summary of Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Cases Initiated during
Calendar Year 2001
Page 78
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
The Voting
Section's
investigation
consisted of
phone interviews
with
Bethune-Cookman
students,
on-campus
interviews of
FAMU students
and student
government The Voting
leaders, and a Section
review of determined that
statements taken the problems
by a were likely
representative attributable to
of the Service voter confusion,
Employees not racial
International animosity. The
Union legal Voting Section
department noted that the
working in incidents of the
1. There were association with three FAMU
allegations made the NAACP. A students who
by students at Voting Section successfully
Florida A&M attorney voted were
University interviewed isolated
(FAMU) in three students incidents, and
Tallahassee on FAMU's campus since each
(Leon County), who claimed to student
Florida, and experience ultimately
Bethune-Cookman difficulty voted, the
College in voting, but were problems they
Daytona Beach, able to vote. suggested did
Florida, The Voting not suggest a The Voting
regarding Section attorney pattern of Section closed
Description discriminatory left his contact intimidation or the matter
based on Disposition treatment of information with attempted vote because it
Voting by Voting African-American FAMU's student denial. The lacked merit
Section Section students in the government Voting Section based on the
information registration association for concluded that evidence
process or at any individuals most of the gathered
the polls. who wanted to allegations were during the
First-time give statements likely to have investigation.
voters, regarding voting been the result
apparently problems but of students not
unfamiliar with could not meet being familiar
the registration with the with the voting
process, had attorney. The process. Many
greater Voting Section students had
difficulty attorney registered at
registering to attempted to their permanent
vote. Older contact all ten home addresses
students did not students from and did not
seem to have Bethune-Cookman, understand they
such difficulty. but was only had to
able to speak re-register in
with three. The Leon County. The
attorney sent Voting Section
letters to the found that voter
remaining inexperience and
students but confusion were
never received to blame at
responses to the Bethune-Cookman,
letters. The not any pattern
Voting Section of
attorney discriminatory
followed up with treatment.
his contacts at
FAMU, but the
Voting Section
did not receive
any response
from students to
Voting its efforts to
Section's Voting conduct further
actions Section's inquiries. The
taken to assessment student
address of government
allegation allegations association
Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment
IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV
Page 79
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
The Voting
Section
closed the
matter in
April 2002.
The closing
memo noted
that the new
The evidence statute
gathered by appears to
the Voting require no
Section showed additional
that the procedures
matching at for accurate
the state name matching
level was set compared to
up in a way the old law.
that it It also noted
captured names that the new
that were less statute
than definite appeared to
The Voting matches. The codify a
2. Beginning Section Voting Section procedure
in 1999, reviewed also learned used by many
under Florida testimony from that after counties
state law, Florida receiving the under prior
the state election stategenerated law where
contracted officials and list, voters whose
with a firm representatives counties' names are
to compare of the company actions matched by
names of that compiled varied. For the state
registered the database example, some must
voters with and obtained counties affirmatively
names of information on refused to use prove their
convicted how the lists the list eligibility
felons who of felons' because they to avoid
under Florida names were perceived it removal.
law were matched to to contain However, the
disqualified voter many errors. Voting
from voting. registration Other counties Section
The state lists. The sent letters closing memo
elections Voting Section to all the also noted
division sent also did people on the that the new
lists of extensive state's list voter purge
felon names additional telling them procedures
for each of investigation that their (which
Florida's 67 to determine names were included the
Description counties to whether the matched to assurances
based on Disposition election method in which those of made by the
Voting by Voting officials in Florida disqualified Attorney
Section Section those compiled a list felons, and General of
information counties for of felons and they would be Florida to
investigation how they purged required to protect
and purging. these felons show their voters from
The Voting violated any of eligibility to erroneous
Section was the statutes vote or be purging) had
concerned enforced by the removed from been
that county Voting Section. the rolls. The precleared on
and state In addition, Voting Section March 28,
actions with the Voting determined 2002. It
regards to Section that evidence further
the purging reviewed gathered for stated that
process may Florida's 2001 this matter the Florida
have been election reform was felon purge
flawed and law pursuant to inconclusive, statute in
impermissible Section 5 of but showed effect at the
under NVRA. the Voting there was a time of the
The Voting Rights Act. possibility 2000 election
Section This review that voters no longer
questioned included could have existed and
whether provisions of been removed that any
eligible the new law in violation litigation
voters had related to the of federal against it
been voter purge law. With based on how
inadvertently procedures that respect to the that law was
removed from were the Section 5 implemented
the voter subject of the review of the would be
rolls. investigation. 2001 election moot. Based
reform law, on these two
this law was factors, the
precleared on matter was
March 28, 2002 closed. The
after careful memo also
also posted and review. stated that
distributed Preclearance the Voting
flyers and sent was granted Section may
out internet only after open a new
notices with receiving investigation
the attorney's explicit depending on
contact assurances any
information. from the information
Neither the Attorney received
attorney nor General of regarding the
the student Florida operation of
Voting association at describing how the new
Section's Voting FAMU received the law would statute and
actions Section's additional be implemented related
taken to assessment allegations of with respect regulations.
address of voting to voter purge Finally, the
allegation allegations irregularities. lists closing memo
Page 80
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
generated by
the state
pursuant to
the new state also made
law. These note of The Voting
assurances pending Section
included (1) a litigation The closed this
statement that in the case investigation matter
there would of NAACP v. found that because it
not be a Harris, Florida found no
presumption in which 3. A A Voting counties with evidence
favor of the included newspaper Section optical scan indicating a
accuracy of allegations article attorney machines that violation of
the statewide that the provided to analyzed activated the federal law.
database, and voter purge DOJ by a rates of spoilage Moreover,
any list used member of ballot detection election
presumption in 2000 the U.S. spoilage technology had reform
would be in violated Senate in lower rates of legislation
favor of the the NVRA. provided counties ballot enacted in
voter and (2) Subsequent information that had spoilage than Florida in
the appearance to the that disabled counties that May of 2001
of a voter's April 2002 officials the did not have requires all
name on any closing of in several spoilage or did not use counties to
voter purge this Florida detection the acquire
Description list of matter, a counties function technology. voting
based on Disposition potentially settlement disabled a in their Some counties machines with
Voting by Voting ineligible was reached feature in optical that had this precinctbased
Section Section voters in this optical scan detection spoilage
information generated by case which scan voting machines feature detection
the state required machines and disabled it on technology by
would not by new used during compared their voting September
itself confirm procedures the those machines. 2002. The
a voter's for how the November rates to There were election
ineligibility, state was 2000 those of also isolated reform law
and that the to complete election to ballot instances also requires
burden of its voter detect spoilage where the counties to
determining purge lists ballots in technology was activate this
ineligibility in the spoiled by counties either technology
was on county future. over-voting that had disabled or during
supervisors of This change and allow not failed to voting. The
elections, a in voter voters to disabled function Attorney
burden which purging correct the this properly. The General,
must meet the procedures error. function. Voting Section under Section The
highest degree was determined 5 of the VRA, Voting
of proof. precleared that there was precleared 4. The Several Section
These under no evidence election U.S. The Voting analyses concluded
assurances Section 5 that the procedures Commission Section suggested that
were of the disabling of provided for on Civil reviewed the patterns there was
Voting specifically Voting this feature in this Rights findings of of racial no basis
Section's Voting noted when Rights Act was done with legislation. issued a the disparity for
actions Section's preclearance in 2003. a report Commission's in the bringing
taken to assessment was issued by discriminatory that posed report ballot a Section
address of the Voting effect or questions regarding rejection 2 lawsuit
allegation allegations Section. purpose. regarding ballot practices against
Page 81
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
Florida on
the basis of
the evidence
of racial
disparities Based on
found in The Voting information
spoilage Section that the
rates. opened a county
Furthermore, matter and provided, the
it was looked into Voting
of a few determined the county's Section found
Florida that because compliance that the
spoiled counties Florida's with the county
ballots in during one 2001 Voting conducted
Florida election. election Accessibility polling place
during the However, the reform law for the surveys in
November Voting Section required new Elderly and 1999 and As a result
2000 determined election Handicapped conducted of the
election. that the machines, Act (VAEHA). another problems
The disparity significant The Voting survey experienced
Commission rejection alone did not steps had Section sent devised to in the 2000
questioned disparity meet the been taken a letter to address the election, the
whether the and several standards for by Florida the Broward problem of Florida
racial newspaper a Section 2 towards County disabled legislature
disparity in studies of lawsuit. The remedying Supervisor of voters' enacted
spoiled the spoilage Voting Section the election 5. DOJ Elections access to the changes to
ballots that issue. It noted that problems received requesting polls. The its
occurred in then more with respect allegations specific investigation accessibility
Florida in prepared a investigation, to voting of information revealed that requirements
Description 2000 was a factual and analysis, and machines. inaccessible regarding the people for polling
based on Disposition violation of legal careful The Voting polling procedures in conducting places and
Voting by Voting Section 2 of analysis of thought would Section also places and place to the surveys voting
Section Section the Voting issues have to be concluded voting ensure the had no machines. In
information Rights Act. raised in given to the that it booths in physical training in light of this
The the causes of would make Broward accessibility accessibility and the
Commission Commission's ballot sense to County, of polling standards. Voting
stated that report to rejection monitor the Florida. places for The county Section's
the U.S. determine if problems in actions of federal provided the determination
Department a Section 2 Florida, the Florida and elections Voting that the new
of Justice violation actual level its counties pursuant to Section Florida law
(DOJ) should had of racial over the VAEHA. attorney with went further
specifically occurred. disparities, subsequent Attorneys a memo and a than the
investigate and the role few years to from the plan stating requirements
whether the played by see whether Voting that Florida in VAEHA, the
racial state and they would Section and intended to investigation
disparity in county follow the Civil purchase new was closed.
spoiled officials through in Rights touch-screen
ballots before a acquiring Division's voting
violated decision could new voting Disability machines with
Section 2. be made machines Rights an audio
concerning a with error Section met component for
Section 2 detection with the the blind or
violation. technologies county visually
and supervisor of impaired,
educating elections and with one such
voters to the voting
see what supervisor's machine
Voting impact such attorney to available per
Section's Voting actions discuss precinct.
actions Section's would have physical
taken to assessment on ballot accessibility
address of rejection of polling
allegation allegations rates. places and
Page 82
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
purchase of
new voting
machines. The
Voting
Section and
Disability
Rights
Section's
attorneys
requested
documentation
such as
copies of
county
surveys
covering 6. It was
accessibility alleged that
procedures, a a crowd of
list of persons
polling place attempted to
changes intimidate
spurred by election Based on
accessibility officials on the
concerns; a the information
list of canvassing gathered,
disability board of the Voting
community Miami-Dade Section
contacts with County, The Voting determined
whom Florida, Section that no
officials during the attorney cause of The Voting
from the presidential reviewed action Section
Description office of the vote recount the existed concluded
based on Disposition county after the allegations under the that no
Voting by Voting supervisor of November along with civil further
Section Section elections 2000 numerous enforcement investigation
information met, and election. It accounts of provisions was warranted
procedures was alleged events that of the and closed
for that this transpired federal the matter.
reassignment group's that day. voting laws
or curbside activities that the
voting. The at the Voting The
county county Section is Voting
provided both courthouse charged Section
attorneys during the with closed
with a recount enforcing. The the
demonstration intimidated discussions matter
of the new the that the because
touch-screen canvassing The Voting Voting it lacked
voting board into Section Section merit.
machines with abandoning attorney conducted According
an audio the recount. examined with to the
component for voter counsel for Voting
the blind or 7. There were turnout Miami-Dade Section,
visually allegations data for County the
impaired. The made after the two indicated evidence
Voting the November precincts that all of that the
Section 2000 election in the Voting
attorney also that ballot question. county's Section
contacted the boxes in two The Voting ballot collected
county predominantly Section boxes had made it
supervisor of minority attorney been seem
Voting election's precincts in also held accounted doubtful
Section's Voting attorney Miami-Dade discussions for on that that
actions Section's requesting County, with the day. there
taken to assessment information Florida, had First According were any
address of on VAEHA not been Assistant to the missing
allegation allegations compliance. picked up on County county ballot
Page 83
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
Thirty federal
observers
monitored
activities at 31
polling places
in Bronx County
8. The and 12 polling
Voting places in
Section Brooklyn County
opened this during the
matter in municipal
August 2001 general
to initiate elections. Three
the staff members
monitoring In pre-election from DOJ's Civil
of an activities, two Rights Division
election in Civil Rights and one AUSA for
New York Division the Southern
City in attorneys met District of New
November with officials York traveled
2001 on the from the New with the The Voting
basis of York City Board observers to Section closed
observations of Elections to provide the matter
supervisor made during discuss concerns additional because the
of the November about monitoring. Two monitoring of
elections, 2000 preparations for Voting Section the election was
the boxes election. the election, staff members completed.
that were Thirty including the visited six Voting Section
later federal need for poll polling places staff could not
located in observers worker training in both comprehensively
the two and seven for the counties. During identify failure
precincts DOJ staff election, the the election, by individual
contained members need for voting observers found poll workers to
election monitored machines to that materials post or provide
Attorney supplies, polling accommodate the to be displayed all materials to
Election in not place number of to inform Spanishspeaking
Day, and Miami-Dade ballots. procedures registered Spanish-speaking voters because
Description that they County, Analysis during voters, the need voters of of the large
based on Disposition were who in of data municipal for assistance to number of
Voting by Voting allegedly turn from the boxes. general Spanish-language interpret the election
Section Section later contacted two elections in voter ballot were not districts-nearly
information found in the county precincts 2001 in registration always clear or 2,000-and the
the supervisor indicated Kings County materials for in public view small number of
polling of that both (also known poll workers to at nearly half observers.
places. elections. precincts as Brooklyn) distribute of the polling However, the
reported and in Bronx minority places in both Voting Section
voter County. The language counties. The found that the
turnout Attorney assistance, and Board of Board of
rates in General had consolidation of Election Elections was
the previously polling places. officials were very responsive
expected certified A Voting Section informed of this to all of the
range both attorney also and took action. Voting Section's
given the counties for attended four These officials concerns and
county's federal pollworker noted that it sent Board
overall observers training was up to each officials to
turnout pursuant to classes. After polling place places where
rate. Section 6 of the election, inspector to problems arose,
the Voting the Voting display the usually within
Rights Act. Section materials they 30 minutes.
Also, 17 attorneys met are given. Poll
federal with several workers were
observers Board of observed asking
and 5 Voting Elections voters for
Section officials to identification,
attorneys debrief them. which was in
monitored violation of New
polling York State law;
place Board of
procedures Election
during the officials were
general notified of this
election in and went to the
2002 in polling place to
Brooklyn. address the
Voting issue. DOJ
Section's Voting monitors did not
actions Section's witness any
taken to assessment Spanish-speaking
address of poll workers at
allegation allegations the 12
Page 84
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
Voting
Section staff
wrote to the
Voter
Registration
and Election
Commission
for
Georgetown
County
outlining the
polling allegations
locations concerning
visited in the rude
Brooklyn; treatment by
this was 9. The Voting the poll
discussed Section received worker and
with Board of an allegation The Voting the Voting
Election from an Section Section's
officials; African-American attorney findings and
however, DOJ voter that a interviewed asked the
officials supervisor at a officials with commission
found that voting precinct the Georgetown how it The Voting
appropriate in Georgetown County Board of planned to Section closed
language County, South Registration respond. The the matter on
assistance Carolina, and Elections, county's March 9, 2004.
was available discriminated representatives Voter As of that date,
in both against of the Registration the Voting
counties. African-American Republican and and Election Section had not
Seventeen voters during Democratic Commission received
federal the 2000 parties, responded in additional
observers and presidential voters, and an writing that complaints
Description five election. The attorney the election concerning the
based on Disposition attorneys voter alleged representing supervisor treatment of
Voting by Voting from the that the the county. The was informed African-American
Section Section Civil Rights supervisor Voting Section by letter voters in
information Division treated attorney also that she Georgetown
monitored African-American interviewed an would be County or about
polling place voters in a rude official who reassigned to voting
procedures and managed the another registration
during the discriminating Georgetown precinct and issues
general manner. In County DMV not permitted previously
election in talking to the office to serve in a investigated.
Kings County. complainant and regarding the supervisory According to the
The Voting others, it was second-hand capacity for complainant, the
Section learned that allegations the June 11, election held on
attorney who there were also from a 2002, June 11,2002,
attended four alleged voter Democratic election. She went smoothly.
poll-worker registration party decided not
training problems during representative to work the
classes found the 2000 regarding June 2002
that the election related possible election.
classes to precinct registration Other issues
appropriately changes and the problems at the examined in
addressed local DMV. local DMV. this
minority After investigation
language interviewing were not
issues and the DMV raised with
assistance. official and the county in
examining the this letter.
forms that the With respect
DMV provides to to the
drivers precinct
applying for change
Voting new licenses to allegations,
Section's Voting simultaneously the Voting
actions Section's allow them to Section
taken to assessment register to learned that
address of vote, the confusion as
allegation allegations Voting Section to proper
Page 85
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
attorney
noted that
the form on
the DMV
driver's
license
application
did not
contain a
box for
people to
check if
they wanted
to register
to vote and
that this
might not voting
adhere to precincts
the NVRA was likely
provision the result
for a of a change
simultaneous in the
process to method of
apply for a identifying
driver's addresses The Voting
license and of voters. Section
register to With attorney
vote. In respect to suggested
addition, in allegations that the
the about the town should
interview DMV make an
with the procedures, 10. The A Voting effort to
employee in the Voting Voting Section educate
the local Section Section attorney voters of
DMV office, received no received a visited district
the Voting complaints complaint Seagraves boundaries
Section from voters alleging and the by methods
attorney who that the Seagraves other than
learned that indicated Seagraves Independent newspaper
Description they may that the Independent School Information advertising.
based on Disposition have been alleged School Board. The in a Subsequent
Voting by Voting only asking problems at District Voting newspaper to the
Section Section people the DMV and the Section article election,
information applying for existed or City of also indicated the city of
new drivers' resulted in Seagraves, contacted a that the Seagraves
licenses, denying both in newspaper allegations sent a map
not people them the Texas, held to review were of district
renewing right to elections published untrue, and boundaries
their vote. In without articles that all and
licenses, if addition, bilingual regarding election candidates
they wanted after the judges or the school material running in
to register examination bilingual board was each
to vote. of the DMV training. election. produced in district to
However, forms and English and each city
this interview Spanish. household.
employee with the The Voting The Voting
further local DMV Section Section
informed the employee, attorney closed the
Voting it was was told matter.
Section concluded that
attorney that there confusion
that in did not existed for
October 2000 appear to all voters
she received be a because of
instructions violation the present
from the of the districting
head of the NVRA. system. The
state DMV to Seagraves
ask every City
person who Secretary
was applying wrote a
for a letter to
driver's the Voting
license Section
whether he attorney
or she stating
wished to that each
register to year the
Voting vote, and city names
Section's Voting she followed a Hispanic
actions Section's that judge who
taken to assessment instruction is also
address of through the bilingual.
allegation allegations election. The City
Page 86
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
Evidence
gathered during
the
investigation
demonstrated
that
Creolespeaking
Haitian-American
voters at
several
precincts were
denied A consent order
assistance from was entered into
11. During the After a full persons of their on June 17,
November 2000 investigation, choice in 2002, that, in
election, the Voting violation of part, prohibited
Miami-Dade Section Section 208 of the county from
County, Florida, initiated the Voting denying
allegedly litigation Rights Act. Haitian-American
engaged in against Oftentimes, only voters
practices that Miami-Dade poll workers, assistance from
prevented the County because who did not persons of their After
county's of its alleged speak Creole, choice and investigating
Creolespeaking violation of were permitted mandated that these
Haitian-American Section 208 of to assist the the county take allegations, In the
voters with the Voting voters, and they certain steps to DOJ filed a complaint,
limited ability Rights Act. limited their prevent complaint in the Voting
to speak English Prior to assistance to violations of the U.S. Section
Description from securing initiating voter Section 208 and District alleged
based on Disposition assistance at litigation, demonstrations to redress the Court for the that
Voting by Voting the polls. In the Voting outside the harm caused Middle Orange
Section Section circumstances Section voting booths. these voters, District of County
information where the county conducted an The Voting such as Florida on violated
permitted voter investigation Section did not modifying poll June 28, VRA
assistance from of the find evidence worker training 2002, and Sections
persons of the county's voter that to include entered into 203 and
voters' choice, assistance noncompliance instruction on a consent 208.
the scope of the practices with Section 208 how to handle decree with
assistance was during the was the result requests for Orange County
limited (e.g., 2000 election. of intentional language on October 9,
Secretary standing next to DOJ filed a discrimination. assistance. The 12. As described 2002. The case is
also voters during complaint with In this regard, consent order is in DOJ's open to
provided the poll worker the U.S. it was noted in effect complaint, DOJ monitor
Voting demonstrations) District Court that the through alleged that implementation
Section and of little in the Miami-Dade Board December. 31, various election of the consent
attorney value to voters Southern of County 2005. The case practices and decree. The
with minutes once they District for Commissioners is open to procedures in consent decree
of prior entered the Florida on passed monitor Orange County, permits DOJ to
city council voting booths. June 7, 2002. ordinances in implementation Florida, monitor
meetings 1999 and 2000 of the consent unlawfully elections in
highlighting mandating that order. denied or Orange County
the Haitian-Creole abridged the from October
nomination ballot voting rights of 9, 2002 until
and approval translations be Spanish-speaking January 31,
of the available in citizens. The 2005. The
election voting booths challenged consent decree
Voting judges, and located at practices also mandates
Section's Voting a sample precincts where concerned the policies and
actions Section's ballot "significant" alleged failure procedures
taken to assessment printed in numbers of of the county that Orange
address of both English Haitian-American to: (1) provide County must
allegation allegations and Spanish. people vote. an adopt with
Page 87
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
13. As described
in DOJ's
complaint, DOJ
alleged that
Osceola County,
Florida, engaged The case is open
in various to monitor
election implementation
practices and of the consent
procedures that decree. The
unlawfully consent decree
denied allows DOJ to
Spanishspeaking monitor
citizens an elections held
opportunity in Osceola After
equal to that of County from the extensive In the
other citizens date of the investigation, complaint, the
to vote. The consent decree which included Voting Section
challenged After through January 14. It was the monitoring alleged that
regards to practices investigating 31, 2005. It alleged that, of several actions
treatment of concerned: (1) the matter, specifies in conducting elections held contributing to
Spanish-speaking the failure of DOJ filed a procedures that elections in in the county, the denial by
voters. The poll officials complaint in In the the Osceola Reading City, the Voting Berks County to
consent decree to communicate the U.S. complaint, County Board of Pennsylvania, Section provide On July 17,
is valid until effectively to District the Voting Elections must Berks County initiated Hispanic 2003, DOJ
Description January 31, Spanish-speaking Court for the Section implement with denied Hispanic litigation citizens with filed a
based on Disposition 2005. DOJ did voters necessary Middle alleged regards to the citizens with against Berks limited English motion for
Voting by Voting not contend that information District of that treatment of limited English County because proficiency an (1)
Section Section Orange County's concerning their Florida on Osceola Spanishspeaking proficiency an of its alleged equal permanent
information failure to eligibility to June 28, County voters and equal violation of opportunity to injunction
adhere to VRA vote, voter 2002, and violated efforts the opportunity to several participate in and entry of
Sections 203 and registration entered into VRA county must participate in provisions of the political final
208 was the status, a consent Sections 2 engage in to the political the Voting process and judgment
result of identification decree with and 208. facilitate process and Rights Act. elect the that sought
adequate number intentional requirements, Osceola voting by elect the DOJ filed a representatives to
of bilingual discrimination. and polling County on Spanish-speaking representatives complaint with of their choice permanently
poll workers place changes July 22, voters. The of their the U.S. included the enjoin the
trained to and assignments; 2002. consent decree choice. District Court following: poll county's
assist Hispanic (2) the refusal is valid through for the officials conduct of
voters on of poll January 31, Eastern directed elections
Election Day; officials to 2005. DOJ did District hostile remarks using
(2) ensure that allow certain not contend that policies,
poll officials Spanishspeaking Osceola County practices,
allow voters intended to deny procedures,
Spanish-speaking assistance in Spanishspeaking and methods
voters to have voting by voters an equal that violate
persons of their persons of their opportunity to certain VRA
choice assist choice; and (3) participate in requirements
them in casting hostile remarks the political and (2) the
their ballots; by poll process. court to
Voting and (3) officials issue an
Section's Voting translate directed towards order
actions Section's certain written Hispanic voters authorizing
taken to assessment election with limited OPM to
address of materials into English appoint
allegation allegations Spanish. proficiency. federal
Page 88
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
15. As
described in
DOJ's
complaint, DOJ
alleged that
the state of
Tennessee
engaged in
practices that
unlawfully
denied certain
citizens full
at, and acted in and complete
a hostile manner opportunities
toward, Hispanic to register to
voters to deter examiners vote in The case is
them from voting pursuant elections for open to
and make them to VRA to federal office monitor
feel unwelcome serve in as mandated by implementation
at the polls; Berks NVRA. The of the consent
poll officials County challenged After decree. The
engaged in through practices investigating consent decree
election June 30, included the this matter, requires the
practices 2007. The failure of the DOJ filed a state and
including the court state and complaint state agencies
failure to granted agency against the In the to develop
communicate the United officials to: state of complaint, uniform
effectively with States' (1) provide Tennessee in the Voting procedures
Description of Spanish-speaking motion on applications the U.S. Section with regards
based on Disposition Pennsylvania voters regarding August 20, to register to District alleged to the voter
Voting by Voting on February necessary 2003. The vote Court of that application
Section Section 25, 2003. information case simultaneously Tennessee on Tennessee process and
information about their remains with September 27, violated the
eligibility to open for applications 2002. On that provisions implementation
vote, voter monitoring for motor same day, the in NVRA. of NVRA and
registration and vehicle state of report
status, several driver's Tennessee progress to
identification elections licenses entered into DOJ annually
requirements, have been (including a consent while the
and polling monitored renewal decree with consent decree
place changes since applications); DOJ. is in effect.
and assignments, entry of (2) request The consent
and turning away the only the decree expires
Hispanic voters consent minimum amount on August 1,
at the 2001 and decree. of information 2005.
2002 elections; necessary to
and Berks County prevent
failed to duplicate
recruit, train, voter
and maintain an registration
adequate pool of and enable
Hispanic and state election
bilingual poll officials to
officials assess the
despite their eligibility of
Voting knowledge of the the applicant
Section's Voting needs of and to
actions Section's Hispanic voters administer
taken to assessment with limited voter
address of English registration
allegation allegations proficiency. and other part
Voting Section's Voting
Description based on Voting actions taken to Section's Disposition by
Section information address assessment of Voting Section
allegation allegations
of the election process; (3)
distribute voter
registration applications
with every application for
public assistance or
services to persons with
disabilities; and (4)
transmit completed voter
registration applications in
a timely manner.
Attachment IV
Election-Related Closed Preliminary Investigation and Matters and Closed
Cases Initiated during Calendar Year 2002
Date investigation DJ
No. Preliminary Jurisdiction or matter No.
Investigation/Matter/Case initiated
1 Hinds County, November 2002 No
Preliminary investigation Mississippi
Apache and
2 Matter (election monitoring) Navajo Counties, September 2002 Yes
Arizona
3 Broward County, November 2002 Yes
Matter (election monitoring) Florida
4 Duval County, November 2002 Yes
Matter (election monitoring) Florida
5 Matter Georgia October 2002 No d
6 Matter Minnesota October 2002 Yes
7 Matter New Jersey October 2002 Yes
8 Bexar County, October 2002 Yes
Matter (election monitoring) Texas
9 Matter Hidalgo County, December 2002 Yes
Texas
August 2002 (case
10 Case Oklahoma filed in September Yes
2002)
March 2002 (case
11 Case Texas filed in March Yes
2002)
Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division.
d According to the Voting Section, this matter did not receive a DJ number
inadvertently.
Summary of Election-Related Closed Preliminary Investigation and Matters
and Closed Cases Initiated during Calendar Year 2002
Page 90
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
1. The wife
of a soldier
from Hinds
County,
Mississippi,
assigned to
Guantanamo, A Voting
Cuba, alleged Section
that her official
husband and discussed the
approximately allegation
50 other with an
soldiers from official in
that county the Federal
did not Voting
receive their Assistance
absentee Program
ballots in (FVAP) under
the mail. the
Hinds County Department of
acknowledged Defense The AUSA told
receiving (DOD), who the soldier's
their said that wife that an The Voting
requests in someone in investigation Section
mid-September Hinds County revealed the closed the
of 2002, and told FVAP on ballots had preliminary
the circuit November 20, been lost in investigation
clerk 2002, that the mail. The after the
confirmed about 20 FBI agent AUSA
they were ballots had concluded concluded,
mailed in the been sent to that the and the
first week of soldiers in county Voting
October 2002. Guantanamo. officials had Section
The Voting mailed the agreed, that
Description Mississippi Section staff ballots to there was no
based on Disposition Secretary of also phoned the soldiers, basis for
Voting by Voting State's the AUSA in but they had bringing
Section Section office Jackson, been lost or charges
information suggested Mississippi, disappeared. against
that the and noted in The private anyone
soldiers fax a memo that company that involved in
in federal the AUSA had processed the handling
ballots but directed a mail for the of the
was not sure local Federal county told ballots
the ballots Bureau of the FBI agent because the
would be Investigation that they ballots had
counted. That (FBI) agent were unable been lost in
office also to interview to check the the mail and
suggested to the chancery zip codes of no further
the soldier's clerk, the mail action was
wife that she registrar, processed on needed.
contact the and all a particular
Voting others in the day.
Section. She chain of
reported to custody of
the Voting the ballots.
Section that The Voting
soldiers from Section also
Madison and discussed
Rankin asking FVAP
counties, to monitor
also in transit of
Mississippi, absentee
did not ballots to
receive their soldiers from
ballots until Hinds and
after the Brandon
election. She Counties
Voting also
Section's Voting contacted the
actions Section's Assistant
taken to assessment U.S. Attorney
address of (AUSA) for
allegation allegations Hinds County.
Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment IV Attachment
IV Attachment IV Attachment IV
Page 91
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
2. On November
5, 2002,
federal
election
observers and
Voting Section
staff monitored
polling place
activities at
21 locations in
Apache and
Navajo
Counties,
Arizona. The
Attorney
General,
pursuant to VRA
Section 6, had
certified these
counties for
federal
observers.
Since then,
federal
observers have
documented A November 22,
problems 2002, memo
related to the discussing the
counties' monitoring of
inability to the November
provide 5, 2002,
consistently election
effective In September indicated that
Navajo language 2002, the the Voting
assistance to Voting Section would
voters and Section met meet in the
other related with the future with
circumstances Apache County election
affecting the Election officials from
Navajo voting Director, the The counties' both counties
population. The Apache County implementation to discuss the
Voting Section Deputy County of their November 5,
was concerned Attorney, the Navajo 2002, election
about the Navajo County Language and develop
following Election election methods to
issues related Director, the information improve the
to the primary Navajo County program was counties'
held in recorder, and inadequate. provision of
September 10, two Navajo While the language
2002, and the County counties assistance and
general outreach provided overall
election held workers to language Election Day
in November 5, discuss assistance to performance.
2002: (1) the several many voters, The matter was
during counties' issues the assistance closed after
the next provision for related to was frequently the election.
election Navajo language elections in insufficient According to
in assistance, (2) the two and failed to the Voting
response voters being counties. The provide Section, this
to the turned away at Voting consistent and is standard
soldier's the polls, (3) Section accurate Voting Section
wife crossover provided language procedure when
Description January voting, and (4) suggestions translation of irregularities
based on Disposition 2003 polls not on how to the offices are observed
Voting by Voting request opening on prevent prior and during
Section Section that the time. During problems from propositions election
information Voting the 2000 recurring. on the coverage. In
Section election cycle The Voting ballot's 14 the case of
keep and 2002 Section propositions. Navajo
these primary, observed the The Voting language
counties federal November 2002 Section assistance in
on its observers election. The concluded that these
"radar documented original poll the counties counties, the
screen." several worker must improve Voting Section
problems with training and expand stated that
the counties' schedules their training such outreach
provision of that the two program for has been
Navajo language counties had interpreters. continuous for
assistance to provided to The federal many years.
voters. The the Voting observers Another memo
Voting Section Section reported that discussing
suggested that allotted the compliance and
both counties approximately interpreters outreach
distribute 2 hours for and poll efforts since
cassette tapes training. The workers the 2002
containing Voting believed more election
Navajo language Section training in indicates many
ballot suggested Navajo improvements
translations to having language in Navajo
poll workers. all-day translation language
The counties training was necessary. assistance
committed to sessions, and Some poll efforts as a
preparing and the schedules workers told result of this
distributing were revised the observers outreach,
the tapes to to allot 6- that the including: (1)
poll workers. 1/2 hours for audiotapes improved poll
Officials from training. The containing worker
both counties Voting Navajo training which
also informed Section translations included the
the Voting suggested were too long use of
Section that that both and confusing. pictorial flip
they would use counties One polling charts to
updated flip provide each place was not assist voters
charts for the polling place well in
November on the Navajo organized,
election. These Reservation resulting in
charts, which with voter very long
were used for registration lines. The
the September lists from Voting Section
primary at the both reported this
Voting counties, and to the Navajo
Section's train poll County
suggestion, workers to Elections
displayed check both Director, who
pictorial lists and sent an
representations check with outreach
and written the worker to
Navajo appropriate remedy the
translations of county problem. The
each of the election line was
offices on the department moving more
primary before quickly by
election turning mid-afternoon.
Voting ballot. There voters away. The number of
Section's Voting had been Both counties voters turned
actions Section's confusion in agreed to away from the
taken to assessment previous adopt this polls was less
address of elections among suggestion. than during
allegation allegations many The Voting the September
Page 92
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
elderly primary.
Navajo voters However,
who live near while all
the the polling
Navajo/Apache places had
county line both
about polling counties'
place and registration
voter books, poll
registration. workers at
These voters most
often vote in locations Actions taken by
different did not use DOJ staff
locations for them. Some included
tribal and did not know interviewing the
state/federal the books understanding clerk of the Voting Section
elections. were the ballot; precinct where a staff provided
Tribal available. (2) outreach white male assistance to
elections do At one and voter precinct worker help correct
not recognize Apache registration who allegedly issues that
county County efforts on harassed arose during the
boundaries. Section location, the African-American monitoring.
Poll workers also observers reservation voters was Examples of
at polling expressed reported at various employed about issues/problems
places near concern that the events; (3) 3. Voting any complaints observed were:
the county about Navajo the opening Section or problems with (1)
line polling county list of new early personnel the assistant African-American
apparently places was not voting and 2 precinct clerk voters felt The Voting
turned away that present. The locations on AUSAs in question. DOJ somewhat Section
dozens of opened Voting the Navajo monitored staff spoke with harassed by a closed the
Description elderly late for Section Reservation; 84 four voters at white male matter
based on Disposition voters the informed the (4) the precincts this precinct precinct worker; because
Voting by Voting because of September county opening of a in regarding their (2) a poll the
Section Section voting primary. elections new satellite Broward experience official did not election
information location The director, election County, voting and asked want to allow a being
confusion counties who showed office on the Florida, election person to vote monitored
during the agreed to the Navajo reservation during officials to who said he had was
2000 primary address County book to the make chairs requested an completed.
and general this to the disseminate November available for absentee ballot
elections and prior to polling voter 2002 the disabled and but did not
the 2002 the place information election. elderly waiting receive it; and
primary. In November inspector. and register in line to vote. (3) persons were
2000, poll 2002 The poll voters; and They contacted turned away
workers gave election. workers had (5) greater county election because of
affidavit not removed cooperation officials about precinct changes
ballots to the book among the a voter who was due to
other from the counties told he could redistricting,
crossover elections providing not vote because because they
voters in the supply box. Navajo he had already moved, and for
mistaken The Voting language sent an absentee other reasons.
belief that Section felt assistance. ballot; the
the ballots that more precinct clerk
would be training and eventually
accepted practice verified that
later. would make the voter
However, the poll
since these workers more
voters were familiar
not with this
registered in new system.
Voting the counties There were
Section's Voting where they no
actions Section's voted, their complaints
taken to assessment votes were about polls
address of considered not opening
allegation allegations invalid. on time.
Page 93
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
had not
been sent
an
absentee
ballot,
and the
voter was
allowed to
cast his While
vote on monitoring
election the election,
day. With the Voting
regard to Section found
the various areas
absentee of
ballot clarification
issue, DOJ and
staff improvement.
advised One issue
the poll Voting Section involved
official attorneys absentee
to contact monitored the ballots and
the election and Florida law
Broward facilitated the allowing a
County 4. At the resolution of person who
Election request problems that requested an
Board. In of arose by absentee
addition, Florida's communicating ballot but The Voting
DOJ staff: Secretary proper election did not Section
(1) gave a of State, procedures to submit it to closed the
Description voter the the the Supervisor vote at the matter
based on Disposition toll-free Voting of Elections. polls. There because
Voting by Voting telephone Section Prior to was confusion the
Section Section number for monitored monitoring the when absentee election
information the Voting the election, ballots were being
Section election Voting Section submitted but monitored
because in attorneys met rejected as was
the voter November with the being completed.
wanted to 2002 in Supervisor of incomplete
complain Duval Elections, because they
about the County, minority lacked
lack of Florida. leaders in the voters'
voting community, signatures
machines; leaders of the and voters
(2) asked NAACP, and then being
a poll representatives able to vote
clerk and from the local at the polls.
poll Democratic and Voters who
workers if Republican submit
they had parties. They absentee
received exchanged ballots are
complaints telephone considered to
about not information and have voted
having invited each and cannot
enough person or group vote at the
voting to contact them polls on
machines; with details of election day
and (3) any problems if the
spoke with that they might absentee
two voters help address. ballot is
Voting who They also rejected.
Section's Voting complained provided Also, poll
actions Section's about a guidance on workers had
taken to assessment precinct issues that given
address of being hard might arise to incorrect
allegation allegations to find. provide a ballots to
Page 94
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
5. Georgia
state law
requires
counties to
have absentee
ballots on hand FVAP
45 days before advised the
a general Voting FVAP
election. Section favored
Georgia missed that a going
the September senior forward
20, 2002, official in with the
deadline for Georgia's suit that
the November 5, Elections Georgia's
2002, general Division Secretary
election said that of State
because of the election had
compressed officials suggested,
election in each of but the
schedule in Georgia's Voting
2002. The counties Section
45-day deadline would did not
was set to photocopy because
comply with all (1) the
federal necessary number of
mandates to ballots and voters
make it easier send them affected
for U.S. to every was very
military military small,
personnel and less than
stationed overseas 132
outside the citizen overseas;
United States absentee (2) UOCAVA
to vote. voter from was
Georgia had whom an amended in
compressed its application 1986 to
2002 primary had been add the
and runoff received in federal
election time. All write-in
schedules such 154 Georgia absentee
that the runoff counties ballot as
was held only had done a back-up
49 days before this by ballot
some voters. the November 5 October 7. when
Voters were general A Voting timely
turned away election. This Section requested
who lacked precluded the attorney ballots do
signed photo printing of the asked the not reach
identification general source of voters in
and were not election ballot the a timely The
Description allowed to in time for the allegation matter Voting
based on Disposition vote by mailing in Catoosa (the Section
Voting by Voting provisional deadline County to Voting closed
Section Section ballot. There required under keep in Section the
information were also a state law. touch and relies on matter.
few instances Georgia gave the the use of
of election person who the
insensitivity officials had made the back-up
to minority contacted FVAP allegation ballot as
voters and during the the phone a remedy
voters with first week of number and in UOCAVA
disabilities. October Web site lawsuits
regarding the for FVAP brought in
state's for primary
compliance with additional elections,
the Uniformed information and had no
and Overseas about reason to
Citizen FVAP's role believe it
Absentee Voting in this was an
Act (UOCAVA). process. inadequate
Catoosa County The Voting remedy);
ballots omitted Section and (3)
the names of attorney the Voting
the Republican contacted Section
common candidate for FVAP, and a believed
understanding the U.S. Senate FVAP the
of action and the official Secretary
that should Republican agreed to of State's
be taken if a gubernatorial contact true
particular candidate from officials interest
problem the ballot. An in Catoosa in the
arose. The allegation was and Ben lawsuit
Voting made that this, Hill stemmed
Section among other counties to from the
attorneys absentee ballot get copies large
worked with irregularities, of their number of
the violated UOCAVA ballots and regular
Supervisor of because the get back to absentee
Elections to correct the Voting ballots
improve ballots, even Section that were
election if sent at the attorney. mailed
processes and time this The Voting late, and
were invited concern was Section such
by the raised on attorney ballots
Supervisor of October 16, also could not
Elections to 2002, would not contacted a be part of
monitor be received in state any UOCAVA
elections in time. Georgia's election remedy.
April and May Secretary of official.
Voting 2003 to State asked DOJ
Section's Voting further to bring suit
actions Section's improve upon against the
taken to assessment their state to extend
address of election the deadline
allegation allegations processes. for receipt of
Page 95
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
7. A suit
arose from
the
resignation
of Senator
Robert
Torricelli
from the
general
election
and ballot
for
Democratic
nomination
to the U.S.
Senate. The
New Jersey
Democratic
party
brought
suit to
secure a
declaration
that the
New Jersey
The Voting Democratic
Section State
closed the Committee The Voting
matter was Section The Voting
after the permitted prepared a Section
state to select a discussion concluded
In an Supreme qualified memo that New
e-mail, Court candidate evaluating Jersey
the issued an to replace the impact state law
Voting order Sen. that the provides
Section addressing Torricelli. New Jersey for several
attorney the The New Supreme methods for
expressed The absentee Jersey Court UOCAVA
concern Voting ballot Supreme ruling The Voting Section voters to
Description about Section issue. The Court ruled would have noted that late participate
based on Disposition ballots monitored order in favor of on transmittal of in federal
Voting by Voting being state specified the state overseas ballots to voters by elections
Section Section mailed, actions the Democratic absentee airmail generally over and
information filled to procedures party and voters. raises concerns that above the
out, and address for required The Voting overseas voters would use of
returned this absentee that a new Section not have sufficient regular
between issue. ballots ballot be monitored time to receive, absentee
October that prepared the New mark, and return ballots
31 and included under the Jersey their ballots to sent by
November various direction Democratic local election airmail.
5 (6 options of the party officials. The Voting The Voting
days). based on state lawsuit Section staff Section
whether a Attorney and state determined that New closed the
voter had General and remedies Jersey state law matter due
or had not a state to address contains several to lack of
already court this unique features that merit.
6. The Voting Section voted for judge. issue. obviate the need for
conducted an Senator Military 2040 days of
investigation under Wellstone. and roundtrip airmailing.
UOCAVA and monitored a overseas In addition, DOD
lawsuit in Minnesota ballots provides a backup
over absentee ballots were to be ballot available at
used in the November given military
2002 general election. precedence installations and
At issue was the and an U.S.
removal of Senator Paul explanatory embassies/consulates.
Wellstone's name on the letter was This is referred to
ballots and issuance of to be sent as a federal write-in
new ballots. Senator to all absentee ballot. The
Wellstone died 11 days voters who Voting Section noted
prior to the election, received that the question
and former Vice the new might arise regarding
President Mondale was ballots. how the state would
designated the The Voting address ballots that
replacement candidate Section was had already been
for the concerned transmitted to
Democratic-Farmer-Labor about the overseas voters and
party. This party late may have already been
Voting argued for mass mailing transmittal returned. The Voting
Section's Voting military of new absentee of ballots Section determined
actions Section's and ballots, and the to military that this was a
taken to assessment other Republican party argued and question for state
address of absentee to do the mailing based overseas officials to resolve,
allegation allegations ballots. on requests. voters. and that the Voting
Page 96
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
In a letter
dated
November 1,
2002, The
Voting
Section
stated that
8. An attorney the Attorney
for Bexar General did
County, Texas, not interpose
requested, in any objection
a letter to to the
the Voting specified
Section dated changes, but
October 18, noted that
2002, Section 5 of
expedited the Voting
review of Rights Act
changes in the provides that
county's early failure of
voting process the Attorney
in the joint General to
general and object does
special not bar
election on subsequent
November 5, litigation to
2002. Changes enjoin
included: (1) enforcement
the one-time of the
use of changes.
two-page After the
ballots for League of
partisan United Latin
contested The Chief American
races, (2) of the Citizens
procedures for Voting filed the
counting Section lawsuit,
Section ballots with wrote a Bexar County
planned straight-party letter back advised the
to raise votes, and (3) to the court that The Voting
this one-time use attorney they Section
Description issue of a single for Bexar initiated closed the
based on Disposition when two-sided County. The Section 5 matter
Voting by Voting speaking ballot for Voting preclearance because it
Section Section with partisan Section had submission granted
information state contested telephone procedures on preclearance
officials races discussions October 18, for the
in supplemented with 2002, and changes.
October by a separate various October 21,
2002. sheet with people 2002. The
duplicate regarding county had
voting the ballot not obtained
instructions format preclearance
for the issues. from DOJ at
November 5, the time the
2002, general lawsuit was
election. filed. The
Prior to that court agreed
request, the with both
League of parties that
United Latin the changes
American were required
Citizens filed and allowed
suit in U.S. the changes
District Court to proceed
for the pending the
Western preclearance.
District of On October
Texas alleging 31, 2002, the
that Bexar court decided
County to retain
implemented jurisdiction
changes to the over the case
conduct of the through the
November conclusion of
general the 2002
election election
without process and
obtaining ordered the
preclearance parties to
from DOJ. advise the
court as to
Voting their
Section's Voting positions on
actions Section's the case on
taken to assessment or before
address of December 1,
allegation allegations 2002.
Page 97
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
9. A U.S.
Representative
sent a letter to
the Attorney
General regarding
possible voter
suppression in
Alabama,
Arkansas,
Florida, Indiana,
Louisiana,
Maryland,
Michigan, New
Jersey, New
Mexico,
Pennsylvania, and The Voting
Texas. In Section
Arkansas, determined
Louisiana, and that Hidalgo
Maryland, it was County's
alleged that election
African-Americans administrator
were victims of handled the
voter situation
suppression. In well by
New Jersey and expelling the
Texas, poll watchers
allegations of when the
voter suppression A Voting voting
involved Section memo supervisors
Hispanics. The referred to an alerted the
victims of voter allegation election
suppression in received from administrator
the other states the U.S. that two poll
were not Representative watchers for
specified. regarding the
According to the possible Republican
Voting Section, intimidation candidate
many of the at the were making
matters referred November 2002 random
to in the letter election held challenges to
were matters in Hidalgo Hispanic
under the County, Texas. voters. The
jurisdiction of The Voting Voting The Voting
the Criminal Section Section Section
Division and were attorney further closed the
being requested determined matter on
investigated by several pieces that efforts June 25,
that Division of on the part 2003,
when the letter documentation of the because it
was received. The from the Republican lacked
Voting Section county party did not merit. The
investigated two elections dampen Voting
of the administrator, minority Section
allegations including turnout and attorney
referred to in newspaper did not observed
the letter, articles, discover that there In the The
including one in letters instances of was a tense After an complaint, consent
Description Hidalgo County, between the voter atmosphere expedited the Voting decree
based on Disposition Texas, where it elections intimidation in Hidalgo investigation, Section required
Voting by Voting was alleged that administrator at the polls County DOJ filed a alleged the state
Section Section the Republican and the on election between complaint in that the to take
information party intimidated Republican day. The some of the the U.S. state of corrective
Hispanic voters elections Voting white District Court Oklahoma actions so
countywide to administrator, Section noted Republicans for the violated that all
dampen their and that minority and the
turnout at the information contacts in Hispanic
general election. regarding a the county: citizenry.
The second study (1) did not The Voting
allegation that regarding the think that Section
the Voting possibility of the recommended
Section 13,000 dead or allegations that this
investigated that ineligible of dead is an area
was referred to voters on the voters on the that should
in the letter was county voter rolls be
in New Jersey; rolls. The dampened monitored
the Voting Voting Section turnout; (2) in future
Section opened a attorney spoke did not elections.
matter in 2003 to with Hispanic believe that
investigate this voters and the
allegation (see other minority challenges
information contacts. The made by the
provided in this Voting Section two poll
attachment for attorney also watchers
2003). The most analyzed voter caused fewer
direct form of turnout data Hispanic
alleged for Hidalgo voters to
intimidation in County and vote; and (3)
Hidalgo County compared it to did not
was reported to the state of report
have occurred Texas for 2002 problems of
when two poll and previous voter
watchers for a elections. intimidation
Republican at the polls.
candidate The Voting
challenged Section did
Hispanic voters not find
at early voting apparent
on the basis that differences
a study indicated between the
that 13,000 dead voter turnout
or ineligible data in the
voters were in 2002 election
the county's compared to
voter other
registration elections.
rolls. The
Republican party
held a press 10. As
conference two described
weeks before the in DOJ's
election where complaint,
party DOJ
representatives alleged
alleged that that the
voter fraud could state of
Voting be a significant Oklahoma
Section's Voting problem with the was not in
actions Section's number of people compliance
taken to assessment listed with
address of incorrectly on UOCAVA.
allegation allegations the voter rolls. Election
Page 98
GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities
The court
entered a
temporary
restraining
order and
preliminary
injunction
on March
25, 2002,
permitting
qualified
Texas
voters to
use federal
11. As write-in
described in absentee
DOJ's ballots for
complaint, the April
DOJ alleged 9, 2002,
that as a election.
result of According
the to the
officials in compressed terms of
Oklahoma period of the court
could not uniformed time between order, the
mail military the Texas state was
absentee personnel primary and required to
ballots to and runoff take
military and citizens elections, actions to
civilian Western living election After an remedy
overseas District overseas officials in expedited absentee
voters on a of who filed a the state of investigation, ballot
date Oklahoma timely Texas failed DOJ filed a issues in
sufficiently on request to to mail complaint and In the the future.
in advance September receive an absentee motion for a complaint, This
Description of the 12, 2002, absentee ballots to temporary the Voting included
based on Disposition September and ballot are military and restraining Section permitting
Voting by Voting 17, 2002, entered UOCAVA. given the civilian order and alleged voters to
Section Section primary into a opportunity overseas preliminary that the submit
information runoff consent to vote. voters on a injunction in state of write-in
election to decree The state date the U.S. Texas ballots if
allow voters with the did so sufficiently District Court violated their
to receive state of through, in advance for the UOCAVA. ballots are
the ballot, Oklahoma among other of the April Western not sent to
cast a vote, on things, the 9, 2002, District of them in
and return September passage of federal Texas on March time and
the ballot 17, 2002. UOCAVA primary 22, 2002. counting
to election compliance runoff the
officials by legislation election to write-in
the deadline in May allow such ballots as
established 2003. voters to valid as
by state receive the long as the
law. ballot, cast voters
a vote, and living
return the outside the
ballot to United
election States are
officials by qualified
the deadline to vote in
established Texas. A
by state stipulation
law. of
dismissal
was entered
in February
2004
following
passage by
the state
legislature
Voting of
Section's Voting legislation
actions Section's remedying
taken to assessment the United
address of States'
allegation allegations complaint.
Attachment IV
Election-Related Closed Matter Initiated during Calendar Year 2003
No. Matter Jurisdiction Date matter initiated DJ No.
1 Matter New Jersey January 2003 Yes
Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division.
Summary of Election-Related Closed Matter Initiated during Calendar Year
2003
Description based on Voting Section's Disposition
Voting Section actions taken to Voting Section's by Voting
information address assessment of Section
allegation allegations
1. This matter was the
second matter opened by
the Voting Section in
response to the
November 2002 letter
from a U.S. The people that
Representative referred the Voting Section
to in the previously attorney contacted
described 2002 matter were not aware of
for Hidalgo County, The Voting the e-mail or any
Texas. There were Section attorney other threats or
allegations of voter contacted a intimidation
intimidation in New Latino political tactics against
Jersey. According to a activist in the Latino voters. The
newspaper article, New York Voting Section
emails were sent to metropolitan noted that its The Voting
Latino lawyers urging area, the investigation Section
them to engage in an Treasurer of the yielded results closed the
aggressive campaign to New Jersey similar to the matter
ensure ballot fairness. Hispanic Bar judge's because it
Attorneys for both the Foundation, and a findings-that the lacked merit.
Democratic and community ballot fairness
Republican National activist and plan mentioned in
Committees presented attorney based in the e-mail did not
their case before the Newark, New raise concerns
U.S. district court. Jersey. about Latino voter
The judge ruled a few intimidation
days before the during the
November 2002 election November 2002
that there was "nothing general election.
sinister" in the
Republican ballot
fairness plan and
characterized the plan
as legitimate campaign
activity.
Attachment V
Comments from the Department of Justice Attachment V Attachment V Attachment V
Attachment V Attachment V Attachment V
(440350)
*** End of document. ***