Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies
for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance (18-JAN-08,
GAO-08-182).
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, contains, among other
things, provisions designed to protect the voting rights of U.S.
citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the English
language may be limited. The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces
these provisions, and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
serves as a national clearinghouse for election information and
procedures. The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
mandated that GAO study the implementation of bilingual voting
under Section 203 of the act. This report discusses (1) the ways
that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance as of
the November 2006 general election and any subsequent elections
through June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly faced in
providing such assistance; and (2) the perceived usefulness of
this bilingual voting assistance, and the extent to which the
selected jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of such
assistance to language minority voters. To obtain details about
this voting assistance, GAO obtained information from election
officials in 14 of the 296 jurisdictions required to provide it,
as well as from community representatives in 11 of these
jurisdictions. These jurisdictions were selected to reflect a
range of characteristics such as geographic diversity and varying
language minority groups.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-182
ACCNO: A79931
TITLE: Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions'
Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance
DATE: 01/18/2008
SUBJECT: Civil rights
Constitutional rights
Elections
Forms
Minorities
Minority education
Policy evaluation
Program management
Reporting requirements
Strategic planning
Voting
Policies and procedures
Voting systems
******************************************************************
** 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-08-182
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Bilingual Voting Requirements and Covered Jurisdictions
* [4]The U.S. Election System
* [5]Prior Work Related to the Elections Process
* [6]Election Officials in All But One Jurisdiction Reported Prov
* [7]All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing Some Type of Bil
* [8]Voter Registration Assistance Reported by Jurisdictions
* [9]Bilingual Absentee and Early Voting Assistance Reported
by J
* [10]Election Day Assistance Reported by Jurisdictions
* [11]Bilingual Assistance Reported by Community-Based
Organizatio
* [12]Jurisdictions Reported Using Various Strategies to Implement
* [13]Nine Jurisdictions Employed Bilingual Voting Assistance
Coor
* [14]Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Worked with
Community-Based
* [15]Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Had Bilingual Poll
Workers a
* [16]Jurisdictions' Targeting of Bilingual Voting Assistance
Effo
* [17]Most Jurisdictions Conducted Outreach but Reportedly
Used Di
* [18]All 14 Jurisdictions Reported Challenges in Providing Biling
* [19]Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Recruiting
Bilingua
* [20]Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Targeting Those
Vot
* [21]Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Designing or
Transl
* [22]Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulty Allocating
Sufficient
* [23]Many Election Officials We Contacted Desired Additional
Guid
* [24]The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Has Taken Recent
Ste
* [25]Some Forms of Bilingual Voting Assistance Were Perceived as
* [26]Certain Types of Assistance Were Viewed as More Useful than
* [27]Some Election Officials and Community-Based Organization Rep
* [28]Conducting Formal Evaluations of the Usefulness and Effect o
* [29]Concluding Observations
* [30]Agency Comments
* [31]GAO Contact
* [32]Staff Acknowledgments
* [33]GAO's Mission
* [34]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [35]Order by Mail or Phone
* [36]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [37]Congressional Relations
* [38]Public Affairs
* [39]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* [40]GAO's Mission
* [41]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [42]Order by Mail or Phone
* [43]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [44]Congressional Relations
* [45]Public Affairs
Report to Congressional Committees
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
January 2008
BILINGUAL VOTING ASSISTANCE
Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing
Assistance
GAO-08-182
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 6
Election Officials in All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing
Bilingual Voting Assistance, but Experienced Challenges 12
Some Forms of Bilingual Voting Assistance Were Perceived as More Useful
than Others, but Formally Evaluating Its Usefulness Presented Many
Challenges 30
Concluding Observations 38
Agency Comments 39
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42
Appendix II Section 203 Coverage Criteria Regarding Language Minority
Groups and Covered Jurisdictions 48
Appendix III DOJ Actions under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act,
1980-2007 62
Appendix IV Examples of Bilingual Voting Written Assistance Materials 64
Appendix V Additional Challenges to Evaluating the Usefulness of Bilingual
Voting Assistance 73
Appendix VI Comments from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 75
Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 77
Related GAO Products 78
Tables
Table 1: Stages of the Election Process 10
Table 2: Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance Reportedly Provided by
Election Offices, by Stage in the Election Process 14
Table 3: Examples of Bilingual Voter Registration Assistance Reportedly
Provided by Election Offices 15
Table 4: Examples of Bilingual Absentee and Early Voting Assistance
Reportedly Provided by Election Offices 16
Table 5: Examples of Bilingual Election Day Assistance Reportedly Provided
by Election Offices 17
Table 6: Examples of Bilingual Assistance Reportedly Provided by CBOs 19
Table 7: Most Useful Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance, as Reported by
Election Officials and CBO Representatives 31
Table 8: Suggestions on How Election Offices Can Improve the Usefulness of
Bilingual Voting Assistance, according to Election Officials and CBO
Representatives 34
Table 9: Jurisdictions Selected for GAO Site Visits and the Related
Information Used to Make the Selections 44
Table 10: Jurisdictions Covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
50
Figures
Figure 1: Section 203 Coverage Criteria for Implementation of the Voting
Rights Act Provisions Regarding Language Minority Groups 49
Figure 2: Excerpt of a Chinese Voter Registration Form - King County,
Wash. 64
Figure 3: English/Chinese Bilingual Absentee Ballot Request Form - King
County, Wash. 65
Figure 4: English/Vietnamese Bilingual Sample Ballot - Boston, Mass. 66
Figure 5: English/Spanish Bilingual Official Ballot - Boston, Mass. 67
Figure 6: Spanish Voting Instructions - Los Angeles, Calif. 68
Figure 7: Bilingual Polling Place Signs - King County, Wash. 70
Figure 8: Bilingual Poll Worker Nametags and Buttons - Orange County,
Calif. 71
Figure 9: Multilingual Tally Card - Los Angeles, Calif. 72
Abbreviations
CBO community-based organization
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
EAC U.S. Election Assistance Commission
HAVA Help America Vote Act of 2002
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
January 18, 2008
Congressional Committees
The right to vote has been called one of the most fundamental rights in
our democratic system of government because its effective exercise is
preservative of all others. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended,
(Voting Rights Act) addressed the problem of denial of access to the right
to vote by, among other things, outlawing specified practices and
procedures such as literacy tests. In 1975, the Voting Rights Act was
amended to include section 203, which requires certain jurisdictions^1 to
provide bilingual election materials and assistance to protect the voting
rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the
English language may be limited. These provisions were initially set to
expire in 1985 but have been extended several times. Debate about whether
to require bilingual voting assistance includes advocates of bilingual
voting assistance who assert that it allows language minority voters to
more fully participate in our nation's electoral process, while critics
contend that the costs incurred in providing such assistance are not
warranted because the assistance is not being used by language minority
voters.
Enacted on July 27, 2006, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
extended the bilingual provisions until 2032, and required GAO to study
the implementation, effectiveness, and efficiency of current bilingual
voting requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.^2 As
discussed with your offices, this report does not address the efficiency
of providing bilingual voting assistance because of the lack of cost data
for providing such assistance. As noted in a March 2006 report, professors
at Arizona State University surveyed jurisdictions covered by Section 203
and reported that a majority of the responding jurisdictions were unable
to provide the costs of their bilingual assistance.^3 Given this recent
survey of jurisdictions, we focused on obtaining more detailed information
about bilingual voting assistance from selected jurisdictions across the
country. Our objectives were to determine:
o the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203
of the Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance
as of the November 2006 general election and any subsequent
elections through June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly
faced in providing such assistance; and
o the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance,
and the extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the
usefulness of such assistance to language minority voters.
^1There are 296 jurisdictions required to provide bilingual assistance
under Section 203. For the specific criteria for determining which
jurisdictions are to be covered under Section 203, see appendix II.
^2Section 9 of Pub. L. No. 109-246, 120 Stat. 577 (2006).
To meet our objectives, we visited or collected information from 14
jurisdictions required to provide bilingual voting assistance under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act (covered jurisdictions) in 12 states.
We considered surveying all of the 296 covered jurisdictions but decided
against doing so for several reasons, including the March 2006 report
cited above on the results of a survey of these same jurisdictions about
similar issues. (For a more detailed discussion of these considerations as
well as a comprehensive description of our methodology, see app. I.) We
chose the 14 jurisdictions because they reflected a variety of
characteristics, such as size (i.e., voting age population), geographic
diversity, and varying language minority groups. We wanted a diverse group
of sites to allow us to report on a wide range of jurisdictions'
experiences with providing bilingual voting assistance. We also obtained
information from representatives of 38 community-based organizations (CBO)
in 11 of the 14 jurisdictions.^4 We either conducted on-site interviews
with or obtained information from election officials, CBO representatives,
and, to a limited extent, language minority voters in the 14 jurisdictions
regarding the bilingual voting assistance provided during the November
2006 general election and any subsequent elections through June 2007. In
addition, we obtained and reviewed supporting documentation as evidence of
the types of bilingual voting assistance (e.g., sample ballots, pamphlets,
voter education materials, etc.) reportedly provided to language minority
voters in these jurisdictions. We also obtained these election officials'
and CBO representatives' perceptions about the usefulness of bilingual
voting assistance to language minority voters as well as information on
any efforts to evaluate its usefulness. Because we selected a
nongeneralizable sample of election jurisdictions, the experiences and
views discussed in this report cannot be generalized to all 296
jurisdictions required to provide bilingual voting assistance under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.^5
^3Dr. James Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, "Minority Language Assistance
Practices in Public Elections" (Arizona State University: Mar. 7, 2006).
^4For purposes of this report, CBO is defined as community leaders,
educators, business groups, labor groups, parent-teacher organizations,
senior citizen groups, church groups, social and fraternal organizations,
veterans groups, and others who are knowledgeable about bilingual voting
issues affecting the relevant language minority community.
In addition to the information we obtained from these jurisdictions, we
conducted interviews with and obtained information from other sources. We
interviewed officials and obtained pertinent documents from the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, which is responsible
for providing program guidance and enforcing compliance with the
requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We also
interviewed officials from the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC),
which was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to
serve, among other things, as a clearinghouse and information resource for
election officials with respect to the administration of federal
elections. Additionally, we interviewed the Chief of the Census Bureau
office that determines which jurisdictions are covered under Section 203
of the Voting Rights Act. We reviewed pertinent federal laws, regulations,
and agency guidance pertaining to the Section 203 bilingual voting
provisions. We also reviewed prior GAO work,^6 other national studies,
reports and news articles, attended several national conferences, and
interviewed the secretary of state for one state with jurisdictions
covered by Section 203 to gain further insight regarding these issues. We
conducted this performance audit from October 2006 to January 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
^5A nongeneralizable, or nonprobability, sample is when nonstatistical
judgment is used to select members of the sample, usually using specific
characteristics of the population as criteria. Results from a
nongeneralizable sample cannot be used to make inferences about a
population, because in a nongeneralizable sample some elements of the
population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.
^6See related GAO products at the end of this report for a list of our
prior work.
Results in Brief
All but 1 of the 14 election jurisdictions we contacted reported providing
some form of oral or written bilingual voting assistance through such
things as the use of bilingual poll workers and written translations of
voting materials, and each of the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in
providing assistance. Election offices in most contacted jurisdictions
reported providing similar types of oral and written bilingual voting
assistance at each stage of the voting process--from voter registration to
Election Day--for the November 2006 and subsequent elections. In nine of
the contacted jurisdictions, the bilingual voting assistance reportedly
provided by the election offices was also supplemented by the voluntary
efforts of community-based organizations. In part because DOJ guidance
intentionally provides jurisdictions some flexibility in how they
implement bilingual voting requirements, election offices reported using
varied strategies to recruit bilingual poll workers, determine where to
target bilingual voting assistance programs, and conduct outreach to the
language minority community. Election officials in each of the 14
jurisdictions reported experiencing a variety of challenges in
implementing bilingual assistance programs, but some key challenges were
prevalent among most election offices contacted. For example, the majority
of these election offices reported experiencing difficulty in recruiting
bilingual poll workers, effectively targeting where to provide bilingual
voting assistance, and designing and translating the bilingual assistance
materials provided. Election officials in 11 jurisdictions also cited not
allocating sufficient resources to their bilingual program as a challenge
to providing more effective bilingual voting assistance. Officials in nine
jurisdictions also told us that they would benefit from additional
guidance or information on best practices for implementing bilingual
assistance programs. The EAC has taken recent steps to provide additional
guidance and information to jurisdictions on providing bilingual
assistance, including plans to develop a set of management guidelines for
jurisdictions to use in implementing their programs.
Although we identified little data measuring the usefulness of various
types of bilingual voting assistance, election officials in eight
jurisdictions and community-based organization representatives in seven
jurisdictions we contacted told us that they believed certain forms of
assistance were more useful than others. While none of the jurisdictions
reported conducting formal evaluations of the effectiveness of their
bilingual assistance programs, the majority reported using various
informal means to get information about the effectiveness of certain
aspects of their bilingual voting assistance programs. Both election
officials and CBO representatives generally agreed that having bilingual
poll workers available on Election Day was a key form of assistance to
voters. Election officials in four jurisdictions and community-based
organization representatives in six jurisdictions believed that having
translated written materials was also a key form of assistance. However,
election officials in 10 jurisdictions and community-based organization
representatives in 9 jurisdictions stated that modifications could be made
that would improve the usefulness of the bilingual services provided to
voters. For example, election officials in four jurisdictions and
community-based organization representatives in nine jurisdictions stated
that election offices' efforts to conduct additional outreach to
individual voters and language minority groups would be key to improving
the usefulness of the bilingual assistance provided to voters. Election
officials in 12 of the jurisdictions as well as community-based
organization representatives in 3 of the jurisdictions we included in our
study reported gathering information about the usefulness of certain
aspects of the bilingual voting assistance provided by the election
offices. For example, election officials in four jurisdictions reported
they had conducted post-election surveys of or obtained comments from poll
workers to determine the number of voters who had used bilingual
assistance at the polls or obtain voter feedback. While the use of formal
program evaluation tools has proven to be a successful means for federal
agencies to improve program effectiveness, accountability, and service
delivery, conducting formal evaluations of the usefulness and effect of
bilingual voting assistance is difficult. Three key difficulties include
identifying the objectives and the appropriate indicators of success,
determining how to measure these indicators once they have been
identified, and isolating the effects of bilingual voter assistance
efforts on language minority voters from more general voter outreach
efforts or other influences on election processes.
We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for review and
comment. DOJ did not provide comments on the draft of this report but did
provide technical edits, which we incorporated where appropriate. EAC
provided written comments that described its recent activities related to
bilingual voting assistance.
Background
Bilingual Voting Requirements and Covered Jurisdictions
The Voting Rights Act^7 was intended, among other things, to protect the
voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of
the English language may be limited. Language minority provisions
contained in Section 203 require covered states and covered
jurisdictions--political subdivisions--that meet the act's coverage
criteria to provide written materials and other assistance, in the
language of certain "language minority groups," in addition to English.^8
Section 203 defines these language minorities as persons who are of
Alaskan Native, American Indian, Asian American, or Spanish heritage. (See
app. II for the specific criteria for determining which jurisdictions are
to be covered under Section 203 and a list of the covered jurisdictions.)
Where the applicable language minority groups have a commonly used written
language, Section 203 requires covered jurisdictions to provide written
election materials in the languages of the groups. Where the language of
the applicable minority group is oral or unwritten, or in the case of
American Indian and Alaskan Native languages if the predominant language
is historically unwritten, only oral information and assistance is
required. With respect to all covered jurisdictions, DOJ guidance provides
that oral assistance and publicity (e.g., public information
advertisements on the radio) should be provided to the extent needed to
enable members of the applicable language minority group to participate
effectively in the electoral process. Section 203 requirements apply to
the entire election process--from voter registration through Election
Day--for all federal, state, and local elections in the covered
jurisdictions.
The DOJ Civil Rights Division is to enforce the covered states and
jurisdictions' compliance with the Section 203 bilingual language
requirements. Where covered states and jurisdictions fail to comply with
the provisions, DOJ may bring a civil action to enforce compliance with
the bilingual language provisions. DOJ may also choose to enter into a
settlement agreement, memorandum of agreement, or consent decree with a
jurisdiction to ensure compliance. These agreements, which may vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, outline the steps necessary to comply with
the language provisions and may cover issues such as the number of
bilingual poll workers needed or the materials to be translated. (See app.
III for a list of jurisdictions that have been subject to DOJ actions
related to Section 203 since 1980.)
^7Pub. L. No 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. SS1973
to 1973bb-1).
^8Another language provision is contained in Section 4(f)(4) of the Voting
Rights Act but is not included in the scope of this report. Both of these
provisions require covered jurisdictions to provide certain voting
materials and assistance in the language of the applicable minority group
but Section 4(f)(4) requires covered jurisdictions to submit specified
types of proposed election law changes to the Department of Justice for
preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The formulas that
trigger coverage are distinct for the two provisions. DOJ took actions
under Section 4(f)(4) against Ector County, R.I. (2005), Brazos County,
Tex. (2006), and Galveston County, Tex. (2007).
DOJ has published general guidance for election officials on how to comply
with Section 203 in the Code of Federal Regulations^9 and on its Web site.
This guidance provides broad information about a number of topics,
including determining the exact language covered within the Alaskan
Native, American Indian, Asian American, or Spanish heritage language
groups and the activities affected by the language provisions. For
example, according to DOJ, jurisdictions should take all reasonable steps
to allow members of applicable language minority groups to be effectively
informed and participate effectively in the electoral process, but may
also exercise some discretion as to where they focus their efforts. DOJ
guidance notes that a jurisdiction need not, for example, provide
bilingual assistance to all of its eligible voters if it effectively
targets its bilingual program to those in actual need of assistance. In
addition, DOJ guidance advises that compliance is more likely to be
achieved when jurisdictions work with local language minority groups to
determine the best methods to inform the language minority community about
available assistance. Additionally, DOJ instructs that when evaluating
whether a jurisdiction has provided a level of oral assistance needed to
enable applicable language minority groups to participate effectively in
the electoral process, DOJ will consider the number of bilingual poll
workers utilized. It also stresses the importance of accurately translated
materials. Furthermore, the DOJ Civil Rights Division states that its
guidance cannot be prescriptive because election systems and the
circumstances of language minority communities vary widely across the
United States. Instead, DOJ provides guiding principles and practical
suggestions to election officials.
Apart from DOJ's compliance guidelines, election jurisdictions, including
those covered by Section 203, may also receive information from the EAC
designed to assist election officials in meeting the needs of
limited-English proficient voters. The Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA) established the EAC to assist in the administration of federal
elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of
certain federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election
administration standards for states and units of local government with
responsibility for the administration of federal elections, and for other
purposes. Section 202 of HAVA, in general, directs the EAC to serve as a
national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information and
review of procedures with respect to the administration of federal
elections. In addition, Section 801 of HAVA transferred to the EAC all
clearinghouse functions that the Office of Election
Administration--established within the Federal Election
Commission--exercised before the enactment of HAVA. These responsibilities
included providing recommendations and tools so that election officials
could provide materials in alternate languages for limited English
proficiency voters. Furthermore, HAVA requires the EAC to conduct periodic
studies, as the EAC may determine, to include: (1) methods of ensuring the
accessibility of voting, registration, polling places, and voting
equipment to all voters, including individuals with disabilities
(including the blind and visually impaired), Native American or Alaska
Native citizens, and voters with limited proficiency in the English
language, and (2) the technical feasibility of providing voting materials
in eight or more languages for voters who speak those languages and who
have limited English proficiency.
^928 C.F.R. Part 55.
The U.S. Election System
The U.S. election system is highly decentralized, with primary
responsibility for managing, planning, and conducting elections residing
at the local jurisdiction level. As we reported in June 2006, there are
about 10,500 local government jurisdictions responsible for conducting
statewide and federal elections nationwide.^10 Of these jurisdictions,
only 296 are covered by Section 203.^11 States can be divided into two
groups
according to how they delegate election responsibilities to local
jurisdictions:
o Most states delegate statewide and federal election
responsibilities primarily to counties, with a few of these states
delegating these responsibilities to some cities. One state,
Alaska, is divided into four election regions comprised of
boroughs, municipalities, and other census areas known by the U.S.
Census Bureau as county equivalents. State personnel in these
regions are responsible for conducting statewide and federal
elections. This first group of states contains about one-fourth of
the local election jurisdictions nationwide.
o The remaining states delegate these election responsibilities to
subcounty governmental units know by the U.S. Census Bureau as
minor civil divisions. These include entities such as cities,
towns, villages, and townships. This second group of states
contains about three-fourths of the local election jurisdictions
nationwide.
^10GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in
the November 2004 General Election, [46]GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.: June
6, 2006).
^11There are 296 covered jurisdictions listed in the Federal Register, but
the exact number of elections offices tasked with providing bilingual
voting assistance is much higher. We do not know this exact number because
for each of the 296 covered jurisdictions, there may be many covered
sub-jurisdictions such as cities or utility districts that are required to
comply with Section 203 for any of the elections they administer.
Nearly all of the 296 jurisdictions covered under Section 203 are
counties, but they also include county equivalents in some states and
minor civil divisions. In addition to all elections conducted by these
jurisdictions, the provisions of Section 203 also apply to the local
elections conducted by sub-jurisdictions, such as cities, towns, school
districts and other special purpose districts, contained within these
listed jurisdictions.
Local election jurisdictions vary widely in size and complexity, ranging
from small New England townships to Los Angeles County, Calif., whose
number of registered voters exceeds that of many states. Our election
system is based upon a complex interaction of people (voters, election
officials, and poll workers), processes (controls), and technology that
must work effectively together to achieve a successful election. Every
stage of the election process--registration, absentee and early voting,
preparing for and conducting Election Day activities, and provisional^12
voting--is affected by the interface of people, processes, and technology.
(See table 1 for a discussion of the stages of the election process.)
^12Provisional voting is the use of provisional ballots (subject to later
verification of registration) in elections in certain circumstances where
a voter's eligibility is unclear.
Table 1: Stages of the Election Process
Stage of the election
process Description and key elements
Voter registration While voter registration is not a federal
requirement, the District of Columbia and all
states, except North Dakota, generally require
citizens to register before voting. The deadline and
requirements for registering vary, but at a minimum,
state eligibility provisions typically require a
person to be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years of
age, and a resident of the state, with some states
requiring a minimum residency period. Citizens apply
to register to vote in various ways, such as at
motor vehicle agencies and public assistance and
disability services offices, during voter
registration drives, by mail, or at local voter
registrar offices. Election officials process
registration applications and compile and maintain
the list of registered voters that is to be used
throughout the administration of an election.
Absentee and early All states and the District of Columbia have
voting provisions allowing voters to cast their ballot
before Election Day by voting absentee--with
variations on who may vote absentee, whether the
voter needs an excuse, and the time frames for
applying for and submitting absentee ballots. In
addition, some states also allow early voting, in
which the voter goes to a specific location to vote
in person prior to Election Day. As with absentee
voting, the specific circumstances for early
voting--such as the dates, times, and locations--are
based on the state and local requirements.
Conducting elections Election officials perform a broad range of
activities in preparation for and on Election Day
itself. Prior to an election, officials recruit and
train poll workers to have the skills needed to
perform their Election Day duties. Where needed and
required, election officials must also recruit poll
workers who speak languages other than English.
Election officials also locate and reserve polling
places, prepare ballots and seek to educate voters
on topics such as what the ballot looks like, how to
use a voting machine, and the location of their
particular polling place. These outreach efforts may
be conducted by attending CBO meetings or events,
informational mailings to voters, or advertisements
in the local media. Finally, election officials seek
to ensure that voting equipment, ballots, and
supplies are delivered to polling places.
On Election Day, poll workers set up and open the
polling places. This can include tasks such as
setting up the voting machines or voting booths,
readying supplies, testing equipment, posting
required signs and voter education information, and
completing paperwork. Before a voter receives a
ballot or is directed to a voting machine, poll
workers typically are to verify his or her
eligibility. In some cases, poll workers may provide
language assistance to language minority voters.
Provisional voting Most states are required to permit individuals,
under certain circumstances, to cast a provisional
ballot in federal elections.^a While states may
choose to allow provisional ballots under other
circumstances, HAVA requires that an individual be
permitted to cast a provisional ballot upon the
execution of a written affirmation before an
election official at the polling place.^b The
written affirmation must state that the individual
is registered to vote in that jurisdiction and
eligible to vote in that election. HAVA specifies
that either the provisional ballot or the written
affirmation information be transmitted to an
appropriate election official for a determination as
to whether the individual is eligible to vote under
state law. If individuals are determined to be
eligible voters, their provisional ballots are to be
counted as votes in accordance with state law.
Source: GAO.
^aThe United States Election Assistance Commission, 2004 Election Day
Survey: "How We Voted: People, Ballots, and Polling Places" (Sept. 2005).
^bUnder HAVA, states that had either (1) no voter registration requirements
for voters with respect to federal elections (e.g., North Dakota) or (2)
polling place registration on Election Day with respect to federal
elections (as in Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming)
in effect on and after August 1, 1994, are not subject to HAVA's
provisional voting requirements.
Prior Work Related to the Elections Process
Over the years we have completed a number of reviews related to elections.
In 1986^13 and 1997^14 we issued reports addressing the types of bilingual
assistance provided by covered jurisdictions, as well as the cost of this
assistance.^15 In our 1997 report, we found that most jurisdictions
reportedly were providing both oral and written assistance. We also issued
a series of reports following the November 2000 general election
addressing a range of issues that emerged during that election and
identifying challenges that election officials reported facing throughout
the election process. In addition, we have issued reports since the
November 2004 general election on voter registration issues and security
and reliability of electronic voting. In 2006, we reported on a wide array
of election issues including discussing, at each major stage of the
election process, changes to election systems since the 2000 election, and
challenges encountered in the November 2004 general election.^16 (See
related GAO products at the end of this report for a list of our prior
work.)
In addition to our work on elections, professors at Arizona State
University released a comprehensive study in March 2006 regarding language
minority assistance practices in public elections.^17 Their study, based
on survey data obtained from jurisdictions currently or previously covered
by Section 203, updated the information from our 1986 and 1997 reports
regarding the costs associated with providing language assistance and also
discussed the types of assistance provided. About half of the surveyed
jurisdictions responded, and of the respondents, a majority was unable to
provide the costs of their bilingual assistance programs. Additionally,
just over 80 percent of responding jurisdictions reported providing some
type of language assistance.
^13GAO, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Costs of and Use during the November
1984 General Election, [47]GAO/GGD-86-134BR (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15,
1986).
^14GAO, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs,
[48]GAO/GGD-97-81 (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1997).
^15Our prior efforts to determine the costs associated with providing
bilingual voting assistance revealed that because jurisdictions and states
are not required to maintain such cost data, information available on
their costs was scant.
^16GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in
the November 2004 General Election, [49]GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.: June
6, 2006).
^17Dr. James Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, "Minority Language Assistance
Practices in Public Elections" (Arizona State University: Mar. 7, 2006).
Election Officials in All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing Bilingual
Voting Assistance, but Experienced Challenges
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions included in our review
reported providing some type of bilingual voting assistance at each stage
of the election process but also reported challenges in providing this
assistance. In part because DOJ's guidance intentionally provides
jurisdictions some flexibility in how they implement bilingual voting
requirements and the needs and preferences of language minority
communities vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, election officials in
these 13 jurisdictions reported using varying strategies to organize their
bilingual voting assistance program staff and offices, work with CBOs,
recruit bilingual poll workers, determine where to target their bilingual
voting assistance programs, and conduct outreach to the language minority
community. In addition, election officials in these 13 jurisdictions also
reported experiencing a variety of challenges in providing bilingual
assistance, with the key challenges being: (1) recruiting and ensuring
quality performance of bilingual poll workers; (2) targeting bilingual
voting assistance; (3) designing and translating bilingual voting
assistance materials; and (4) allocating sufficient resources to provide
bilingual voting assistance. Although election officials in 12
jurisdictions reported receiving some degree of guidance or assistance for
addressing Section 203 requirements from DOJ and other sources, officials
in 9 jurisdictions reported wanting additional guidance or assistance. The
EAC has taken recent steps to provide additional guidance and information
to jurisdictions on providing bilingual assistance.
All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing Some Type of Bilingual Voting
Assistance throughout the Election Process
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions reported providing some
type of written assistance and/or oral assistance for language minority
voters.^18 This assistance was provided throughout the election
process--from voter registration to Election Day. Written assistance
included such things as translated voter registration forms, ballots,
sample ballots, instructions, and signs. Oral assistance included
bilingual phone and in-office assistance, translated audio instructions
and ballots, bilingual poll workers, and bilingual in-person outreach
activities. The various types of bilingual voting assistance and the
numbers of jurisdictions that reported providing each type of assistance
at each stage of the election process are summarized in table 2.
^18The one election jurisdiction included in our study where election
officials did not report actively providing any bilingual voting
assistance is the Kenai Peninsula Borough in Alaska. The Kenai Peninsula
Borough Clerk is responsible for the administration of local elections
whereas the State of Alaska, Division of Elections, is responsible for the
administration of statewide and federal elections. A local Kenai Peninsula
Borough election official reported that while they were aware that the
Kenai Peninsula Borough was covered under Section 203, they maintained
that bilingual voting assistance wasn't needed and provided documentation
that one Native Alaskan community declined the assistance. In addition,
state election officials in one region, who are responsible for the
administration of statewide and federal elections in Kenai Peninsula
Borough such as the November 2006 election, did not report making any
special arrangements to provide bilingual voting assistance in this
particular area of the state. However, we learned that local poll workers
in at least two targeted communities took the initiative to provide
bilingual voting assistance to those who sought it for this election.
Senior officials with Alaska's Division of Elections reported that they
were, at the time of the 2006 election, unaware that Kenai Peninsula
Borough was covered under Section 203. These officials also told us that
they are in the process of reviewing their bilingual voting assistance
program.
Table 2: Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance Reportedly Provided by
Election Offices, by Stage in the Election Process
Stages of the Types of assistance^a
election process Written Oral
Voter registration o Bilingual or o In-person outreach
translated voter activities (12)
registration forms o Bilingual in-office
(10)^b assistance (10)
o Bilingual phone
assistance (10)
Absentee and early o Bilingual or o Bilingual phone
voting translated ballots (12) assistance (11)
o Bilingual or o Bilingual in-office
translated absentee assistance (10)
voter registration forms o In-person outreach
(8) activities (10)
o Translated voting o Translated audio
instructions (7) ballots (7)
o Bilingual signs (5) o Bilingual in-person
o Translated sample early voting
ballots (4) assistance (5)
Election Day voting o Bilingual or o Bilingual poll
(includes translated ballots (12) workers (13)
provisional voting) o Translated voting o Recorded audio
instructions (11) ballots (12) and
o Bilingual signs and instructions (11)
buttons (11) o Bilingual phone
o Translated sample assistance (9)
ballots (10) o Special interpreters
(6) and non-paid
assistants (2)
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
^aFor each of the election offices contacted, there was little variation
between the types of assistance provided in the 2006 General Election and
in other subsequent elections. Thus, we did not distinguish between the
2006 General Election and other subsequent elections in this table.
^bThe number of jurisdictions where each type of assistance was reportedly
provided is in parentheses.
Voter Registration Assistance Reported by Jurisdictions
Election officials in 12 jurisdictions reported providing some type of
bilingual voter registration assistance and 11 of these jurisdictions
reported offering both oral and written assistance. All but four election
offices included in our study reported providing translated voter
registration forms and all but two reported conducting in-person voter
registration outreach activities targeted at the language minority
community. Election offices reported a wide range of venues and
methods--such as staff participation in community parades and at swearing
in ceremonies for new citizens--to conduct voter registration outreach to
the language minority community. In addition to these outreach activities,
representatives of most election offices also reported offering bilingual
voter registration assistance to individuals who phoned or visited the
election office. (See table 3 for examples of written and oral bilingual
assistance reportedly provided to assist language minority community
voters with voter registration.)
Table 3: Examples of Bilingual Voter Registration Assistance Reportedly
Provided by Election Offices
Written assistance
Miami-Dade County, FL, election officials reported providing all voter
registration applications in English, Spanish, and Creole, though they
were only required under Section 203 to provide written bilingual voting
assistance for the Hispanic community.
The Secretary of State produces the Chinese version of the voter
registration form for residents of King County, WA.^a The translated form
did not ask registrants whether they would prefer to receive future
election materials in Chinese, but a King County elections official
reported assuming that registrants who used a Chinese registration form
would also want a Chinese ballot.
In Suffolk County, NY, the Board of Elections reportedly conducted
widespread bilingual information mailings to explain the voter
registration process to language minority voters 20-30 days prior to
Election Day.
Oral assistance
In Harris County, TX, the Tax Assessor's Office, which is responsible for
voter registration, told us they had two community outreach staff that
conducted voter outreach to various Hispanic and Vietnamese CBOs, attended
community events to encourage people to register to vote, and selected
deputies within the language communities to register voters.
Election officials in Los Angeles County, CA, reported having a
multilingual phone line with live bilingual staff 2 weeks prior to major
elections and a language line translator during non-election season.
In Sandoval County, NM, one election official believed the most effective
form of bilingual voter registration outreach to Native American
communities was staff attendance at Native American events and visits to
individual voters' homes. Sandoval County, NM, election officials also
reported speaking to Tribal Councils of the Pueblos and the Navajo
Chapters.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
^aAn example of Washington State's Chinese voter registration form is
provided in appendix IV.
Bilingual Absentee and Early Voting Assistance Reported by Jurisdictions
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions included in our study
reported providing some form of bilingual voting assistance for absentee
and/or early voting.^19 The most common type of assistance (12
jurisdictions) was bilingual ballots or separate translated ballots for
absentee or early voters. Other types of assistance provided by varying
numbers of jurisdictions included bilingual or separate translated
absentee voter registration forms; sample ballots and voting instructions;
bilingual phone assistance; bilingual in-office assistance; and bilingual
poll workers at early voting locations. (See table 4 for examples of
written and oral bilingual assistance reportedly provided to minority
language absentee and early voters.)
^19All 14 of the election offices we contacted reported offering eligible
voters an absentee voting option and 9 of the 14 election offices reported
offering an early voting option.
Table 4: Examples of Bilingual Absentee and Early Voting Assistance
Reportedly Provided by Election Offices
Written assistance
City of Boston election officials reported providing English-Spanish
bilingual absentee ballots.
Orange County, CA, election officials reported mailing translated sample
ballots to language minority absentee voters before mailing official paper
ballots. Orange County, CA, election officials also reported that
bilingual voting signs and instructions were posted at each early voting
site in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese.
Bilingual absentee ballot request forms in King County, WA, allowed
registrants to indicate if they would like to receive future election
materials in Chinese.^a This feature allowed election officials to
identify voters desiring bilingual voting assistance.
Oral assistance
Los Angeles County, CA, election officials reported having bilingual poll
workers at 17 touch screen early voting sites with voting systems in 7
languages (including English).
A Jackson County, SD, election official reported offering Lakota^b audio
assistance on electronic voting machines 2-3 weeks before the November
2006 General Election.
City of Boston election officials reported offering language minority
voters bilingual absentee voting assistance if they called the Boston
Election Department's telephone line or walked into the office. These
officials also reported working with staff in elderly housing communities
to help them provide assistance to elderly voters who were disabled, ill,
or otherwise not able to vote on Election Day.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
^aA copy of King County's bilingual absentee ballot request form is
provided in appendix IV.
^bElection officials we met with in South Dakota stated that Lakota was not
historically a written language. However, two community leaders we met
with noted that written Lakota was being taught in at least some schools.
Election Day Assistance Reported by Jurisdictions
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions reported providing some
type of written and/or oral assistance for language minority voters on
Election Day. As with absentee and early voting assistance, one of the
most common types of written assistance reportedly provided on Election
Day was bilingual ballots or separate translated written ballots, which
were reportedly provided in 12 of the jurisdictions. The most common form
of oral bilingual voting assistance reportedly provided on Election Day
was bilingual poll workers, who were provided in 13 jurisdictions. Two
jurisdictions reportedly provided audio translations for largely unwritten
Native American languages. (See table 5 for examples of written and oral
bilingual assistance reportedly provided on Election Day.)
Table 5: Examples of Bilingual Election Day Assistance Reportedly Provided
by Election Offices
Written assistance
Miami-Dade County, FL, election officials reported that all ballots
(absentee ballots, paper, and electronic DRE ballots) were available in
English, Spanish, and Creole, though they were only required by Section
203 to provide written assistance for the Hispanic community.
Montgomery County, MD, election officials reported that all written
Montgomery County, MD, voting materials (including bilingual sample
ballots posted in the polling place or booth, bilingual voting
instructions, bilingual posters at the polling locations, and bilingual "I
voted" buttons) were bilingual Spanish-English to prevent anyone from
failing to make the Spanish language materials accessible.
King County, WA, election officials reported posting bilingual signs in
their polling places.^a
Oral assistance
In Orange County, CA, election officials reported that poll workers wore a
badge stating the language he or she spoke and were instructed to actively
provide bilingual assistance by approaching voters to ask if they need
assistance.^b
Cook County, IL, city election officials reported that they had multiple
phone lines available on Election Day that language minority voters used
to obtain oral assistance in multiple languages.
A Sandoval County, NM, election official reported providing "translation
tapes" for minority-language voters to listen to before they voted. (In
addition to Spanish, Sandoval County, NM, election officials reportedly
provide bilingual voting assistance for speakers of Keresan, Towa, and
Navajo--languages that are historically unwritten.)
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
^aExamples of bilingual polling place signs reportedly posted in King
County, WA, are provided in appendix IV.
^bExamples of the badges reportedly worn by bilingual poll workers in
Orange County, CA, are provided in appendix IV.
See appendix IV for examples of bilingual materials reportedly available
to voters in some of the locations we visited.
Bilingual Assistance Reported by Community-Based Organizations
CBOs reported providing various types of bilingual voting assistance in
nine of the jurisdictions included in our study. Seven key types of
assistance that CBOs reported providing were:
o Informing the language minority community about voting
(reportedly provided by CBOs in nine jurisdictions);
o Registering language minority voters (8);
o Providing assistance to language minority voters on Election Day
(7);
o Helping determine the types of bilingual voting assistance
needed and which voters need it (7);
o Informing language minority voters about early and/or absentee
voting (6);
o Recruiting and training bilingual poll workers (6); and
o Helping translate or design the bilingual or translated ballot
(4).
The bilingual voting assistance provided by CBOs generally took one of
three forms: supplementing election office efforts, working with election
offices to provide assistance, or providing assistance that otherwise was
not provided by the election office. For example, some CBO representatives
reported providing types of assistance similar to those offered by
election offices, such as registering language minority citizens to vote
or answering voters' questions. Other CBO representatives reported helping
election officials provide assistance, such as helping to recruit
bilingual poll workers or translating official election materials.
Finally, some CBO representatives reported conducting activities related
to bilingual voting assistance that election officials did not do, such as
employing poll monitors and providing language minority voters with
transportation to the polls on Election Day. Some examples of the specific
activities the 38 CBOs included in our study reported undertaking as part
of their bilingual voting assistance efforts are summarized in table 6.
Table 6: Examples of Bilingual Assistance Reportedly Provided by CBOs
Efforts to supplement bilingual voting assistance provided by election
offices
A CBO serving the Chinese American community in the City of Boston, MA,
reported holding voter education workshops in local low income housing
units or community buildings to register people to vote and provide
information about both the voting process and the bilingual assistance
available.
A CBO serving the Spanish-speaking community in Montgomery County, MD,
reported conducting significant media outreach, including partnering with
a Spanish radio station to promote voter registration and hosting press
conferences and events to attract Spanish language media and all local
television and major newspapers' attention to voter education.
One Los Angeles County, CA, CBO serving the Asian American community
reported hosting a toll-free hotline to take calls and answer questions
from prospective voters around Election Day. According to CBO
representatives, most of the calls to the phone line were in Mandarin and
many calls were from citizens who had not voted before.
Efforts to collaborate with election offices in providing assistance
In King County, WA, representatives of a coalition of CBOs serving the
Chinese American community reported being very involved in recruiting
bilingual poll workers. They reported sending out e-mails and soliciting
volunteers. The coalition also reported organizing a phone survey of
bilingual poll workers to learn about their experience on Election Day.
They then used this information to create a video used to train poll
workers.
One representative of a CBO in Harris County, TX, reported reviewing and
commenting on the accuracy of a demographic map that county election
officials used to determine where to target resources.
Representatives of various Asian American CBOs in Cook County, IL,
reported that they translated election materials in the past but the
demand became overwhelming. Thus, the election office started using a
private company for the translations or did the translations itself.
However, these CBOs reported that they still occasionally checked
translations and provided the election office with feedback on
transliteration.
Efforts to provide assistance not otherwise provided by the election
office
A representative with one CBO reported monitoring around 50-100 polling
sites in Los Angeles County, CA, for the November 2006 election. This CBO
compiled poll monitoring reports, sent them to election officials, and
walked through these reports with election officials at post-election
debrief meetings.
A CBO representing the Filipino community in Los Angeles County, CA,
reportedly provided voters with transportation to the polls because some
polling places were difficult to locate and not convenient to public
transportation.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from CBO representatives.
Jurisdictions Reported Using Various Strategies to Implement Their Bilingual
Voting Assistance Programs
Election officials in jurisdictions included in our review reported using
varying strategies to implement their bilingual voting assistance
programs. These strategies included combinations of (1) employing
bilingual voting assistance coordinators; (2) working with CBOs; (3)
recruiting bilingual poll workers; (4) determining where to target^20
their bilingual voting assistance programs; and (5) conducting outreach to
the language minority community. The range of election office strategies
may be due in part to the flexibility of the guidance that the DOJ Civil
Rights Division provides to help covered jurisdictions address the
requirements of Section 203, as the guidance places the responsibility of
determining how best to provide the required assistance with the
individual jurisdictions. DOJ states that its guidance is intentionally
flexible because the needs and preferences of language minority
communities vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This flexibility
allows election offices to tailor their programs to try to meet their
jurisdiction's unique needs.
^20"Targeting" refers to a system in which the minority language materials
or assistance are provided to fewer than all persons or registered voters.
It is the view of the U.S. Attorney General that a targeting system will
normally fulfill the minority language requirements if it is designed and
implemented in such a way that language minority group members who need
minority language materials and assistance receive them.
Nine Jurisdictions Employed Bilingual Voting Assistance Coordinators
Election officials in nine of the jurisdictions included in our study
reported that they employed dedicated coordinators to manage their
bilingual voting assistance programs. Officials in two of these offices
noted that employing a bilingual voting assistance coordinator who was
familiar with the demographics of the local language minority communities
was particularly helpful in effectively determining where to target their
bilingual voting assistance. In addition, election offices in four of the
six jurisdictions that were required to provide assistance in more than
one language reported having at least one designated staff for each
covered language minority group. For example, the Orange County, Calif.,
registrar of voters reported having one or two bilingual "community
program specialists" devoted to bilingual voting assistance in each of its
covered languages--Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Worked with Community-Based Organizations but
Differed in Their Approach and Extent of Activities
Election officials in 10 of the 14 jurisdictions reported that they worked
with CBOs in providing bilingual voting assistance. Of these, officials in
seven reported having formal election advisory committees or task forces
that included CBO representatives. Election officials reported that some
of these advisory committees provided input such as feedback on elections,
comments on translated election materials, and suggestions for targeting
bilingual voting assistance. For example, in King County, Wash., the
election office reportedly received guidance and assistance from a
"Section 203 Community Coalition," which was comprised of five CBOs
representing the Chinese community. According to coalition members, the
coalition worked closely with the election office, meeting as often as
twice a month. In one example of their collaboration, King County's
"Section 203 Community Coalition" reportedly introduced the idea of
conducting surname analysis to identify Chinese-speaking potential voters
and then mail the identified individuals a postcard notifying them about
bilingual voting assistance and encouraging them to return the postcard to
the King County Elections Department if they would like to receive future
elections materials in Chinese. The coalition conducted the analysis, the
county paid for the mailing, and both parties told us it was a very
successful collaborative effort.
The three elections offices that reported working with CBOs but did not
report having formal advisory committees reportedly worked with CBOs in
other ways. For example, Seward County, Kans., election officials reported
working with CBOs on voter outreach to minority language voters by
distributing bilingual voter registration cards. Similarly, Suffolk
County, N.Y., election officials reported working and communicating
regularly with a network of CBOs to disseminate election information to
language minority voters through churches, community centers, and
households. Suffolk County election officials stated that their
relationships with CBOs were very helpful because they facilitated voter
outreach and expanded the Bureau of Elections' access to people in the
language minority community.
Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Had Bilingual Poll Workers and Used Multiple
Methods to Recruit Them
Election officials in 13 jurisdictions we contacted reported recruiting
bilingual poll workers through a combination of efforts. These efforts
included: (1) contacting CBOs and language minority media, (2) posting
recruitment materials in language minority neighborhoods, (3) contacting
potential poll workers directly, (4) recruiting from the public and
private sector employers, and (5) conducting direct mailings. According to
officials in nine jurisdictions, one method of recruiting bilingual poll
workers was communication with representatives of CBOs or the minority
community who facilitated contacting and recruiting bilingual poll
workers. In addition, election officials in some jurisdictions reported
using language minority media such as in-language radio, television, and
newspapers to encourage members of the language minority community to
serve as bilingual poll workers. For example, an election official in King
County, Wash., reported success with a televised public service
announcement featuring a Chinese American former Governor of Washington
State encouraging other Chinese Americans to volunteer as bilingual poll
workers. Five elections offices reported posting signs in language
minority neighborhoods--in schools, libraries, stores, and civic
associations--to recruit bilingual poll workers. In the City of Los
Angeles, election officials reported posting signs in ethnic grocery
stores in language minority neighborhoods to recruit bilingual poll
workers. Election officials in five jurisdictions also reported recruiting
bilingual poll workers through in-person contact with potential applicants
at language minority community events, through e-mail messages, and by
making targeted phone calls. Other jurisdictions reported more success in
recruiting either high school or college students to be bilingual poll
workers than did those who tried recruiting bilingual poll workers from
the private sector. Representatives of several election offices reported
supplementing these efforts by recruiting local government employees to be
bilingual poll workers. Finally, in three of the election offices we
contacted, officials stated that direct mailings were used to recruit
bilingual poll workers.
Jurisdictions' Targeting of Bilingual Voting Assistance Efforts Involved a
Combination of Approaches
To determine where to target their bilingual voting assistance efforts,
election officials in many of the jurisdictions we contacted reported
using some combination of surname analysis, reviews of U.S. Census Bureau
and other demographic data, input from CBOs, and analysis of voter
requests for bilingual voting information. Specifically, these efforts
included the following:
o Analyzing surnames: Election officials in eight jurisdictions
reported using surname analysis to try to identify those areas
within a jurisdiction that contain a higher concentration of
voting age citizens with surnames indicative of the covered
minority language. A few election officials stated that surname
analysis was most helpful in identifying language minority
individuals in largely homogeneous communities or in identifying
neighborhoods that were undergoing demographic transitions and
experiencing an influx of new language minority communities. Other
election officials reported that although surname analysis may not
have been an accurate tool, it was an approach prescribed in a
legal agreement negotiated with the DOJ Civil Rights Division. As
a result, officials chose to use surname analysis, but in
combination with other targeting approaches. Officials with the
DOJ Civil Rights Division noted that in many of the agreements
reached between the Civil Rights Division and local election
officials, surname analysis was used--in the absence of other
reliable data--as a starting point for determining appropriate
sites for bilingual poll workers.
o Analyzing demographic data: Election officials in some
jurisdictions reported using demographic data and information from
the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources to identify language
minority communities within their jurisdictions. For example, due
to concerns that surname analysis alone was not allowing them to
effectively target assistance, election officials in Harris
County, Tex., told us they hired a contractor to use Census data
to identify areas with population concentrations of language
minority individuals within their jurisdiction. Election officials
in Montgomery County, Md., reported using a combination of Census
data and other data sources such as demographic statistics on
students in the jurisdiction's public school system to target
those precincts with the greatest need for bilingual voting
assistance.
o Obtaining input from CBOs: Election officials in nine
jurisdictions reported obtaining input from CBOs to better target
their bilingual voting assistance programs. Officials in seven of
the election offices we contacted reported seeking targeting
guidance from their language minority advisory committees. For
example, an election official in Montgomery County, Md., reported
that their multicultural outreach committee has been very helpful
in identifying which voters need bilingual voting assistance, the
types of assistance to be provided, and at which precincts
assistance needs to be provided. In Los Angeles County, Calif.,
election officials stated that they obtained input from CBOs as
part of their systematic targeting process to identify precincts
that may need bilingual voting assistance--if a community partner
organization indicated that a neighborhood should be targeted for
a particular language, the polling places in that neighborhood
were considered "targeted."
o Analyzing voter requests: Officials in four election offices
reported utilizing records of past voter requests for or use of
bilingual voting assistance to target future bilingual voting
assistance efforts. For example, some officials reported
collecting data on requests for bilingual assistance noted on
voter registration cards, absentee ballot request forms, and phone
calls to the elections office. In addition, election officials in
three jurisdictions reported asking poll workers to record the
number of requests for bilingual voting assistance on Election
Day. Election officials in Los Angeles County, Calif., for
example, reported that they tracked requests for language
assistance by precinct and had poll workers use a "multilingual
tally card" to keep track of the numbers of voters requesting
language assistance on Election Day. (An example of a multilingual
tally card used in Los Angeles County is provided in app. IV.)
Election officials in five jurisdictions, however, stated that
they did not or could not track voter requests for assistance. For
example, Seward County, Kans., election officials stated that
Kansas state law forbids the election office from tracking
individuals' requests for bilingual voting assistance. Similarly,
an election official in Montgomery County, Md., reported that due
to personal privacy concerns, the county did not track usage of
bilingual voting assistance. Election officials in Harris County,
Tex., noted that their state-issued voter registration forms did
not have a place for registrants to indicate their preferred
language; therefore, it was not possible for the local
jurisdictions to track requests for assistance using voter
registration forms.
Most Jurisdictions Conducted Outreach but Reportedly Used Diverse Methods to
Engage Language Minority Communities
Election officials in 13 jurisdictions told us that they used various
strategies to reach out to language minority voters to inform them of the
availability of bilingual voting assistance and to educate them about the
election process. These strategies included working with CBOs; using
ethnic media outlets; conducting in-person contacts; and posting bilingual
voting information on the Internet. Specifically, these efforts included
the following:
o Working with CBOs: Election officials in nine jurisdictions
reported working with representatives of CBOs to conduct bilingual
outreach and voter education. For example, Suffolk County, N.Y.,
election officials stated that they worked closely with the
network of organizations active in their language minority
communities to disseminate election information to churches,
community centers, and households in their efforts to reach
language minority voters. Election officials in the City of Boston
reported that they communicated regularly with the CBO
representatives that participate in the city's Voter Outreach and
Education Task Force, and that the CBOs played an active,
necessary role in disseminating bilingual voting assistance
information. Similarly, election officials in King County, Wash.,
reported that CBOs provided substantial amounts of outreach,
workshops, and seminars informing and educating language
minorities of the availability of election materials and how to
use the new voting system implemented in the jurisdiction.
o Using media outlets: Jurisdictions reported using a variety of
media outlets to conduct bilingual outreach and voter education.
Election officials in most of the jurisdictions included in our
study reported using print media, radio or televised public
service announcements to conduct bilingual outreach, and the types
of media used sometimes varied among the targeted language
minority communities. For example, election officials in Orange
County, Calif., reported using Spanish-speaking television
stations to target information to the Latino community but that
using Vietnamese radio stations and newspapers were more effective
for reaching the Vietnamese community. Election officials in the
City of Boston reported that they worked with the Ethnic Media
Studies Department at the University of Massachusetts to determine
what ethnic media outlets were most used by the language minority
community in their jurisdiction. Finally, election officials in
six jurisdictions also reported using targeted translated mailings
to inform the covered language minority community about election
processes and important voter information. These included
translated voter registration forms, sample ballots, and voting
instructions.
o Using in-person contact: Election officials in 11 jurisdictions
reported using in-person contact with the language minority
community as another means to inform targeted individuals about
the availability of bilingual voting assistance and to educate
them on election processes. For example, election officials for
the City of Boston reported that in-person contact was the most
effective outreach method in their jurisdiction. As a result,
their staff attended and registered voters at language minority
community forums and swearing-in ceremonies for new citizens.
Election officials in other jurisdictions also reported that they
visited language minority community events or locations such as
festivals and libraries to conduct voter outreach and education.
For example, an election official in King County, Wash., stated
that she participated in voter education forums held by a CBO to
talk through the voter's pamphlet with Chinese-speaking voters,
provide instructions on how to fill out the ballot, and encourage
participants to share their knowledge with others in the language
minority community.
o Posting information on the Internet: Officials in 11 of the
election offices we contacted reported posting bilingual voting
assistance materials and information on their websites, though to
varying extents. For example, election officials in Harris County,
Tex., told us they translated aspects of their Web site to provide
language minority individuals with essential voting information,
including important dates, early voting and Election Day
information, sample ballots, and information on how to operate the
jurisdiction's voting system. In contrast, Orange County, Calif.,
election officials reported that nearly all of the web content
provided in English is available in each of the four covered
languages. Los Angeles County, Calif., election officials reported
focusing their Web site's language content on frequently utilized
materials while working to make more election procedures available
in the county's required minority languages.
All 14 Jurisdictions Reported Challenges in Providing Bilingual Voting
Assistance
All 14 jurisdictions we contacted reported experiencing challenges in
providing bilingual assistance, with the key challenges related to: (1)
recruiting and ensuring quality performance of bilingual poll workers, (2)
targeting bilingual voting assistance, (3) designing and translating
bilingual voting assistance materials, and (4) allocating sufficient
resources to bilingual voting assistance. In addition to identifying these
key challenges, officials in nine jurisdictions expressed a desire for
more guidance or assistance on providing bilingual voting assistance.
Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Recruiting Bilingual Poll Workers and
with Bilingual Poll Worker Performance
Election officials in nine of the jurisdictions stated that they had
difficulty recruiting bilingual poll workers for a variety of reasons. For
example, five jurisdictions reported that recruiting was difficult because
of the long hours and minimal pay provided to bilingual poll workers--they
believed that many individuals in the language minority communities had
multiple jobs and could not afford to commit to the long hours required of
a bilingual poll worker on Election Day. Election officials in five
jurisdictions also added that it was a challenge to recruit bilingual poll
workers who were willing to serve at a polling place outside their home
precinct. In their experience, some bilingual poll workers either did not
have the means to travel to other polling sites or were reluctant to do
so. In addition, demographic shifts in some jurisdictions reportedly
created recruiting challenges. For example, representatives of four
election offices stated that recruiting was especially challenging for new
language minority communities with only a very limited pool of potential
bilingual volunteers or when members of the language minority community
that are fluent in the covered language are decreasing in numbers due to
aging. In one jurisdiction, an election official reported that some voters
who reside in areas that are not historically language minority
communities do not want to be identified as language minority speakers;
therefore, they hesitate to volunteer.
In addition to recruiting problems, representatives of election offices
from two jurisdictions reported that they experienced challenges related
to bilingual poll worker performance. For example, election officials in
Los Angeles County, Calif., stated that, in their experience, the
performance of bilingual poll workers has been adversely affected by poor
treatment by other poll workers that did not recognize the importance of
providing bilingual voting assistance. Election officials in this
jurisdiction also stated that CBOs have complained in the past that some
of the bilingual poll workers were unwilling to assist language minority
voters due to differences in their personal and cultural backgrounds,
noting that acculturating new bilingual poll workers into the election
environment was an issue they needed to address. In addition, election
officials in this jurisdiction mentioned that while cultural sensitivity
and diversity training was included in their general poll worker training,
it was very difficult to spend sufficient time on the topic when there was
a great deal of material to cover during the brief poll worker training
time available. Similarly, election officials in the City of Boston
reported difficulty managing some veteran poll workers who were reticent
to use the training associated with the bilingual voting aspects of their
job. According to these officials, expanding the length of training to
address these issues has not been an option because trainees' attention to
the material covered was limited to a certain amount of time, attendance
is not required, and it could increase costs associated with the training.
Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Targeting Those Voters Who Needed
Bilingual Voting Assistance
Election officials in eight of the jurisdictions we contacted reported
that limitations in surname analysis, U.S. Census Bureau data, or
demographic shifts in their jurisdictions made it difficult to effectively
target bilingual voting assistance. Election officials in several
jurisdictions reported that surname analysis did not accurately indicate
whether individuals were actually limited-English proficient or proficient
in the covered language, and added that surname analysis may overstate the
need for bilingual assistance in particular precincts. Election officials
in Los Angeles County, Calif., also noted that surname analysis was not
useful in jurisdictions containing multiple language minority groups,
especially those with many overlapping surnames. For example, these
officials reported that it was very difficult to correctly distinguish
between members of the Filipino and Spanish-speaking communities using
surname analysis because Filipino surnames overlap with Spanish surnames.
Election officials in some jurisdictions also asserted that U.S. Census
Bureau data are not accurate or detailed enough to enable them to
effectively target language minority voters or, in some cases, determine
the precise dialect a covered language minority community speaks. For
example, Suffolk County, N.Y., election officials reported that they have
had challenges targeting language minority individuals who are eligible to
register and vote due to the number of undocumented persons included in
Census data who are not registered to vote. In addition, election
officials for Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, explained that while the
Census data identified the jurisdiction as requiring bilingual voting
assistance in American Indian and Aleut languages, it is not clear what
specific languages or dialects officials should target.^21 Some election
officials also explained that targeting bilingual voting assistance can be
more difficult when the language minority communities are not concentrated
in discrete geographic areas within the jurisdiction. For example, Los
Angeles County, Calif., election officials reported that the diversity of
the county's population and its constant demographic shifts require their
office to modify their targeted precincts every 2 years, whereas Census
data for jurisdictions covered under Section 203 are currently updated
every 10 years.
^21Aleut is one branch of the Eskimo-Aleut language family and has
multiple dialects.
Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Designing or Translating Bilingual
Voting Assistance Materials
Election officials in nine jurisdictions reported difficulties designing
or translating their bilingual voting assistance materials. Election
officials reported that translating ballot language was particularly
challenging because of differences in the meanings of words in various
dialects of a given language or difficulties finding comparable phrasing
in the covered language. Some election officials reported that this
challenge was exacerbated by the limited time they had to review and
correct errors before printing and distributing the election materials.
For example, election officials in Montgomery County, Md., reported that
they operated under short time frames with the vendors that produced their
materials and had just 7 days to proof the ballot layout, design,
spelling, audio pronunciation, touch screen text, and optical scan text
before the materials had to be printed. In addition, some election
officials noted that a translated ballot in a minority language is often
longer than the English version--this difference in text length made it
difficult to design a user-friendly bilingual ballot.
Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulty Allocating Sufficient Resources to
Their Bilingual Voting Assistance Efforts
Election officials in 11 jurisdictions reported that they had difficulty
allocating either sufficient staff or financial resources to their
bilingual voting assistance efforts. Election officials in five
jurisdictions stated that additional staff would allow them to more
effectively conduct outreach to the language minority communities. For
example, an election official from Miami-Dade County, Fla., stated that
having limited staff available to send to language minority communities
has made it more difficult to educate language minority voters about the
election process. Additionally, election officials in two jurisdictions
stated that having sufficient staff would allow them to more effectively
translate and review the written and oral assistance provided. In
Montgomery County, Md., election officials reported that they rely heavily
on unpaid community volunteers but with additional funding the county
could conduct more outreach activities.
Many Election Officials We Contacted Desired Additional Guidance and
Information on Providing Bilingual Assistance
Although officials in 12 jurisdictions reported receiving some degree of
guidance or assistance from DOJ or other sources, officials in 9
jurisdictions also reported that more guidance or assistance may be
helpful. For example, election officials in the City of Boston stated that
they received some assistance from DOJ in the past, but that additional
guidance and greater coordination among jurisdictions that provide
bilingual voting assistance would also be beneficial. These officials told
us they had taken the initiative to communicate with other covered
jurisdictions to learn about their approaches to providing bilingual
voting assistance but believed that a more organized system for
information sharing between jurisdictions would be useful. These same
views were echoed by election officials participating in discussion
sessions we held on bilingual voting assistance during two national
election conferences on election issues sponsored by the Election Center
in 2007. Specifically, in both discussion sessions, several election
officials noted that additional guidance and greater coordination among
jurisdictions that provide bilingual voting assistance would be
beneficial. In addition, an official from a jurisdiction included in our
study stated that the Secretary of State's Office and DOJ had offered
assistance, but little to none had been received. Election officials in
five jurisdictions that reported receiving guidance or assistance from DOJ
stated that some of the assistance was not helpful, accurate, or reliable.
Officials with the DOJ Civil Rights Division stated that their office
offers guidance and assistance to local election officials on how to
comply with Section 203, but it is the responsibility of covered
jurisdictions to determine what languages, forms of languages, or dialects
will be effective in their jurisdictions. Furthermore, these officials
stated that its guidance is intentionally flexible because election
systems and the circumstances of language minority communities vary widely
across the United States. Instead, DOJ states that it provides guiding
principles and practical suggestions for election officials to use. DOJ
officials also noted that they have taken steps to make covered
jurisdictions aware of this guidance, including conducting in-person
visits with newly-covered jurisdictions as well as making presentations to
state and local election officials through national groups and
associations.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Has Taken Recent Steps to Provide
Additional Guidance and Information to Jurisdictions on Providing Bilingual
Assistance
The EAC has taken steps to provide guidance on bilingual voting assistance
as part of its responsibilities under HAVA to serve as a national
clearinghouse and resource for information with respect to the
administration of federal elections. For example, the EAC formed a
Language Accessibility Program that has taken steps to provide
recommendations and tools to election officials on providing bilingual
voting assistance. In April 2007, the EAC published English-to-Spanish and
Spanish-to-English versions of a glossary of over 1,800 election terms and
phrases used in the administration of elections. The glossary was designed
to assist state and local election officials in providing translated
election materials that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. In
addition, in September 2007, the EAC awarded a contract to translate this
glossary into five additional languages covered under Section 203:
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, with an anticipated
glossary publication date of May 2008. The EAC also issued two guidebooks
on recruiting and training poll workers that included suggestions on
serving the needs of language minority voters. For example, one of the
guidebooks included a section on partnering with civic organizations to
recruit bilingual poll workers, and the other guidebook included a chapter
on recruiting bilingual college students to serve as poll workers.
In addition to its completed publications, the EAC has other assistance
efforts planned in response to recent concerns voiced by election
officials to the EAC regarding the need for additional guidance and
information on providing bilingual assistance. For example, the EAC plans
to dedicate a future chapter of its set of Election Management Guidelines
to the topic of language accessibility. EAC officials reported that this
language accessibility chapter (and accompanying brochure) will address
strategies for election officials to consider and implement when providing
elections services to voters with limited English proficiency throughout
the election process. The EAC plans to develop this guidance by consulting
election officials and professionals with first-hand experience managing
elections in order to identify and develop the key content the
publications should address. EAC officials noted that this process should
begin in April 2008, and final publications should be released to the
public by the end of that year. After its initial set of Election
Management Guidelines has been completed, the EAC plans to regularly
assess the need to cover other topic areas and update previous materials
to maintain current and relevant information in the guidelines.
Some Forms of Bilingual Voting Assistance Were Perceived as More Useful than
Others, but Formally Evaluating Its Usefulness Presented Many Challenges
Although we identified little data measuring the usefulness of various
types of bilingual voting assistance, election officials in eight
jurisdictions and CBO representatives in seven jurisdictions in our study
told us that they believed certain forms of assistance were more useful
than others. In addition, none of the jurisdictions had formally evaluated
the effectiveness of their bilingual voting assistance programs, although
most had used some means of gathering information about elements of the
assistance provided. Election officials in 10 jurisdictions and CBO
representatives in 9 jurisdictions also stated that modifications could be
made that would improve the usefulness of the bilingual services provided
to voters. While the use of formal program evaluation tools has proven to
be a successful means for federal agencies to improve program
effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery,^22 conducting formal
evaluations of the usefulness and effect of bilingual voting assistance is
difficult for a variety of reasons. Three key difficulties include (1)
identifying the objectives and appropriate indicators of success, (2)
determining how to measure these indicators once they have been
identified, and (3) isolating the effects of bilingual voting assistance
efforts on language minority voters from more general voter outreach
efforts or other influences on election processes.
^22GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, [50]GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
Certain Types of Assistance Were Viewed as More Useful than Others
Although the election jurisdictions and CBOs we met with had not conducted
any formal evaluations of the bilingual assistance they provided, the
majority of both believed that the assistance that the election offices
provided was useful to language minority voters. Specifically, election
officials we met with in 12 of 14 jurisdictions and leaders of CBOs in 10
of 11 jurisdictions believed that the bilingual voting assistance provided
by the election offices was useful to language minority voters and helped
improve their participation in the voting process. However, some types of
bilingual assistance were viewed as more useful than others. (See table 7
for the types of bilingual voting assistance identified as most useful.)
Table 7: Most Useful Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance, as Reported by
Election Officials and CBO Representatives
Number of jurisdictions Number of jurisdictions
in which election in which CBO
Type of bilingual voting officials viewed this as representatives viewed
assistance provided by the most useful type of this as the mostuseful
the election office assistance type of assistance
Bilingual poll workers 6 5
Translated voting
materials (i.e., voter
guides, registration
forms, sample ballots,
ballots) 4 6
Community outreach and
education activities 2 3
Media in-language (i.e.,
newspapers, tv, radio,
mailings) 2 2
Web site 2 0
Translated polling place
signage 1 0
All forms of bilingual
assistance 1 0
Designated bilingual
coordinator 0 3
Use of community
advisory committees 0 2
Voting machines
bilingual ballots 0 2
Phone assistance to
intermediaries on behalf
of language minority
voters 0 1
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials and CBO
representatives.
Note: Officials may have designated more than one type of assistance as
most useful. Election officials and CBO representatives may be in the same
jurisdiction.
Both election officials and CBO representatives generally agreed that
having bilingual poll workers available on Election Day was among the most
useful forms of assistance to voters. As noted above, election officials
and CBO representatives in some jurisdictions also believed that having
translated written materials was among the most useful forms of
assistance. For example, a CBO representative in Harris County, Tex., told
us that having bilingual voting guides, sample ballots, and other election
materials was more useful to voters than having bilingual poll workers
available on Election Day. He explained that members of the community
preferred to have translated written materials that they could study in
their homes and discuss with family members prior to the election rather
than waiting to get assistance from bilingual poll workers on Election
Day.
In limited instances, bilingual voting assistance was not viewed as
useful. In two jurisdictions, the limited use of the bilingual voting
assistance by voters led election officials to question its usefulness.
For example, officials with the Harris County, Tex., tax assessor's office
(which is responsible for voter registration in the county) provided us
with some data that indicated a low usage of translated voter registration
applications. During calendar year 2006 and through June 2007, the office
distributed roughly 97,000 voter registration applications in Vietnamese
and roughly 173,000 in Spanish by placing them at branches of the tax
assessor's office, public libraries, and Texas Department of Public Safety
locations, as well as distributing them during community outreach events.
However, the office received back only 2 of the Vietnamese and 309 of the
Spanish registration applications. While the officials did not speculate
as to the reasons for the low usage of the translated forms, they noted
that since they are required to provide the forms in both languages they
would continue doing so. CBO representatives in two jurisdictions also
told us that they did not believe that the bilingual voting assistance
provided by the election offices was always useful. For example, a CBO
representative in Jackson County, S. Dak., noted that bilingual voting
assistance was not needed because about 95 percent of people in the
covered language group can read and understand English. This opinion was
also similar to that of a group of senior citizen Filipino voters we met
with through a CBO in Los Angeles County, Calif. These voters had mixed
views on the usefulness of the bilingual voting assistance they received.
Some of these voters indicated that the quality of the translated ballots
was poor; therefore, they instead voted using the English version of the
ballots. However, these voters also noted that Filipinos generally know
how to read and speak English; thus, the assistance was not necessary.
Yet, these voters also wanted the same benefits (i.e., translated election
materials) provided to them that other language minority groups received
under Section 203.
Election officials and CBO representatives in some jurisdictions stated
that modifications could be made that would improve the usefulness of the
bilingual assistance currently provided to language minority voters. For
example, election officials in four jurisdictions and CBO representatives
in nine jurisdictions believed that the usefulness of bilingual voting
assistance provided by the election office could be improved through
additional community outreach and education efforts. Election officials in
five jurisdictions and CBO representatives in six jurisdictions noted that
improvements in the translation of bilingual voting materials would
improve their usefulness to language minority voters. Finally, election
officials in three jurisdictions and CBO representatives in seven
jurisdictions believed that improvements in the recruiting and training of
bilingual poll workers would improve the usefulness of bilingual voting
assistance. (See table 8 for a list of specific suggestions from election
officials and CBO representatives for improving the usefulness of
bilingual voting assistance.)
Table 8: Suggestions on How Election Offices Can Improve the Usefulness of
Bilingual Voting Assistance, according to Election Officials and CBO
Representatives
Community outreach and education
o Following-up on community outreach events to determine their impact
(i.e., whether new voters registered).
o Seeking additional members of the language community for
participation in advisory committees.
o Having community leaders volunteer to work in election offices to
better understand the election process.
o Surveying or otherwise soliciting feedback from language minority
voters about the bilingual assistance they received.
o Placing more public service announcements about the election process
in language media (i.e., radio, tv, or newspapers).
o Hiring more permanent bilingual staff.
o Issuing bilingual voting guides.
o Providing financial assistance to CBOs so that they could provide
additional bilingual voting assistance.
o Using high-profile spokespeople to raise awareness of the importance
of voting among language minority voters.
o Having dedicated phone lines, answered in-language, to provide
assistance or information about voting to language minority voters.
Translating election materials
o Ensuring that all materials are translated.
o Placing additional translated materials on election office Web sites.
o Using bilingual ballots versus separate translated ballots.
o Translating candidate debates and forums as well as materials into
the covered language.
o Asking members of the language minority community to proofread
translations.
o Providing audio ballots in the covered language.
o Tracking voter language preferences (via registration forms) to
provide mailings in the preferred language.
o Using standardized translated terms.
o Working with the language minority community to identify specific
dialects of a language that are needed, if any.
Recruiting, training, and placing bilingual poll workers
o Hiring additional bilingual poll workers.
o Ensuring bilingual poll workers are placed at the polling places that
need them.
o Improving poll worker training to emphasize bilingual assistance as a
regular part of doing business.
o Reducing bilingual poll worker training class size to allow more
in-depth discussions.
o Increasing oversight of bilingual poll workers to ensure they are
actually providing assistance.
o Having bilingual poll workers wear name tags--in the relevant
language--to identify the language they speak.
o Asking CBOs to assist with conducting poll worker training.
o Recruiting bilingual poll workers from the business community.
o Using bilingual city employees as poll workers.
o Increasing poll worker pay.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials and CBO
representatives.
Some Election Officials and Community-Based Organization Representatives
Attempted to Measure Aspects of Bilingual Assistance
None of the jurisdictions we included in our study had formally evaluated
the effectiveness of their bilingual voting assistance programs, although
most had used some means of gathering information about the assistance
provided.^23 Election officials in two jurisdictions told us that formal
evaluations of their bilingual voting assistance programs were
unnecessary, since even if they discovered that voters had not used the
assistance or did not find it useful, the jurisdictions were still
required to provide it. Further, officials in one of these jurisdictions
said it is inappropriate for the jurisdiction to conduct such a study
because of the risk of perceived political motivations to do away with
bilingual voting assistance, as well as the potential for legal action if
the evaluation results were used to try to justify not providing bilingual
voting assistance.
Election officials in 12 of the 14 jurisdictions reported they used
various informal means to get information about the effectiveness of
certain aspects of their bilingual voting assistance programs. For
example, election officials in six jurisdictions told us they used
feedback from voters, community groups, advisory committees, phone calls
to a language telephone hotline, and other public contacts to determine if
the bilingual assistance was useful and whether any modifications were
needed. Election officials in one jurisdiction said their CBO partners
were their "eyes and ears"--providing significant input if the bilingual
voting assistance they provided was not effective or needed improvement.
These officials commented that they believed obtaining feedback from CBOs
was the best way to know how they were doing, and told us that DOJ had
acknowledged that using CBOs for feedback is a good idea. Election
officials in another jurisdiction reported that they reviewed Election Day
call-center logs to determine whether voters or others had reported any
problems related to bilingual voting assistance, and that if any problems
were identified the jurisdiction worked to address them. Election
officials in four jurisdictions reported they had conducted post-election
surveys of or obtained comments from poll workers, either to determine the
number of voters who had used bilingual assistance at the polls on
Election Day or to obtain feedback about election judges' and poll
workers' experiences concerning the assistance provided. Finally, election
officials in two jurisdictions noted that they reviewed changes in the
numbers of language minority voters voting or requesting non-English
ballots to gauge the effectiveness of their efforts.
^23By formal evaluation, we mean a systematic examination of the extent to
which the provided bilingual voting assistance successfully achieved its
intended purpose(s).
Representatives from CBOs in three jurisdictions reported that their
organizations had conducted some type of evaluation of the bilingual
assistance provided by their election jurisdiction in the November 2006
general election or had collected other information about the bilingual
voting assistance provided in their jurisdictions. For example,
representatives of a CBO in one jurisdiction told us they had conducted
exit polling with all voters, not just language minority voters, in the
November 2006 general election. Leaders from CBOs in another jurisdiction
reported conducting focus groups with county leaders, voters, and callers
to a phone bank regarding the usefulness of the bilingual voting
assistance provided in their jurisdiction. In addition, representatives of
a CBO that was involved in two jurisdictions noted that their organization
collected data on Election Day regarding the presence and activity of
bilingual poll workers and the display of translated voting materials in
polling places. Representatives with one CBO told us their method of
evaluation relied on informal feedback from community members.
Conducting Formal Evaluations of the Usefulness and Effect of Bilingual Voting
Assistance Is Difficult
While formal program evaluation tools have proven to be successful means
for federal agencies to improve program effectiveness, accountability, and
service delivery, election offices face many difficult issues in
evaluating the effectiveness, or outcomes, of the bilingual voting
assistance they provide.^24 Among these, three key issues are (1)
identifying the objectives of the bilingual voting assistance program and
criteria for achieving these objectives, (2) determining how to measure
these criteria once they have been identified, and (3) isolating the
effects of the bilingual assistance from other influences on language
minority voters when they vote. (See app. V for a discussion of additional
challenges to evaluating the usefulness of bilingual voting assistance.)
o Identifying the objectives and criteria: The identification of
appropriate objectives and criteria for achieving them is basic to
any evaluation of effectiveness, as an effective program must move
toward the achievement of an identified purpose. Examples of
objectives for bilingual assistance could be (1) increased
language minority voter turnout, (2) increased independence
demonstrated by language minority voters when voting, and (3)
language minority voters who are better informed when casting
their ballots.
o Determining how the objectives and criteria will be measured:
Once objectives and criteria have been established, it is then
necessary to determine how they will be measured. For a number of
reasons, measuring the effectiveness of bilingual voting
assistance is difficult. For example, to measure the effectiveness
of bilingual voting assistance on language minority voter turnout,
if a jurisdiction keeps records on which voters have indicated
needing bilingual assistance, poll books can be checked to see
whether these voters have voted and the numbers of such voters can
be tracked across elections. However, officials in one
jurisdiction told us that state law prohibited them from
indicating either a person's race or their primary language in
their voter registration records. Additionally, a jurisdiction
could track the number of ballots printed in a covered language
that had been used by voters. However, the number of ballots would
not be a useful measure if both English as well as the covered
language are printed on the same ballot. Measuring other potential
indicators could be even more difficult. For example, one
objective of bilingual voting assistance could be to enable
language minority voters to cast their ballots independently--for
example, without the need for someone to accompany them into the
polling booth to provide language assistance. However, without
information on the number and percentage of voters who needed
assistance to cast their ballot prior to the implementation of
bilingual voting assistance, jurisdictions could not measure the
effect of the assistance on this indicator accurately.
o Isolating the effects from other influences: Isolating the
effects of bilingual assistance on voter behavior would be
extremely difficult because a number of factors influence voter
behavior--such as age, party affiliation, or social organizations
to which voters belong. For example, turnout among Hispanic voters
could increase in the first election following the implementation
of bilingual assistance. This same election could feature one or
more Hispanic candidates on the ballot or one of the candidates
could have taken a position deemed as "anti-immigrant." It could
be difficult to determine the contribution of each of these
factors to the increased Hispanic voter turnout.
The two general approaches that are often used to help isolate the
effects, or impact, of a program would be difficult to use in
evaluating bilingual voting assistance. The first approach
involves having baseline data--data from the period before a
program is implemented--along with data collected from the period
after a program is implemented and comparing the two periods to
determine whether there are differences in the indicators being
measured. However, this approach could be very difficult, if not
impossible, to use because jurisdictions might not have collected
the relevant data from previous elections. Also, as mentioned
earlier, unless there is some ability to determine the
contribution of other factors that might influence voter behavior,
it could be difficult to determine the specific effect bilingual
assistance has had.
The second approach is to have a comparison or control group and
involves collecting data from a separate group of individuals who
do not participate in the program but have characteristics similar
to those who do participate in the program to determine whether
there are any differences between these groups on the indicators
being measured. With bilingual voting assistance, this would mean
collecting data on groups of language minority voters who do not
receive any bilingual assistance, and comparing the results to
data collected from language minority voters who received the
assistance. However, it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to keep a control group of language minority voters
from hearing or seeing pre-election bilingual assistance provided
through the media. Further, unless conducted in a simulated way,
such as in a mock election, a jurisdiction covered under Section
203 seeking to use such a methodology with respect to language
minority voters would appear to face the additional challenge of
meeting the Section 203 requirements as well as complying with
other applicable federal and state voting rights protections.
^24Evaluations of effectiveness, or outcomes, can be distinguished from
process or implementation evaluations, which are designed to assess the
extent to which a program is operating as intended. As we have stated
before, effectiveness evaluations are difficult to design and execute
because optimal conditions for the scientific study of complex social
programs almost never exist. Attributing results to a particular
intervention can be difficult when such programs are evaluated in real
world settings that pose numerous methodological challenges.
Concluding Observations
Most election officials we met with supported providing bilingual voting
assistance and took actions to implement this assistance in their
respective jurisdictions; however, many of them also expressed uncertainty
on how best to assess and meet the needs of language minority voters. DOJ
provides guidance on bilingual assistance under Section 203, and it is
intentionally flexible in nature to allow covered election jurisdictions
to tailor their bilingual voting assistance programs to the specific needs
and resources of their communities. At the same time, this flexibility has
led to uncertainty among election officials as to whether their bilingual
programs are actually meeting requirements or the needs of language
minority voters. Moreover, although we have noted in prior work that
federal agencies have successfully used formal program evaluation tools to
improve federal program effectiveness, accountability, and service
delivery, the methodological difficulties election officials and others
would likely face in trying to formally assess the effectiveness of their
bilingual assistance programs for language minority voters make formal
evaluations of these programs very difficult. As a result, the extent to
which bilingual voting assistance programs are meeting the needs of
language minority voters is unknown.
However, the difficulty in conducting formal evaluations does not mean
that election jurisdictions would not benefit from additional feedback or
information about their own or other jurisdictions' bilingual voting
assistance programs. The EAC's recent efforts to develop and provide
guidance to election jurisdictions regarding the translation of election
terminology and recruiting bilingual poll workers address two of the
challenges we identified in this report. Similarly, the EAC's planned
development of additional management guidelines for election officials on
how to provide bilingual voting assistance might also help jurisdictions
in providing this type of assistance. However, because the specific
content of these management guidelines has yet to be determined, whether
they will provide election officials with the information they seek is
unknown. Nonetheless, while these guidelines may not provide election
officials with feedback about their specific language assistance programs,
making such information available from a central, easily accessible source
could help jurisdictions address challenges they face in determining how
to provide bilingual voting assistance that will be useful to the language
minorities in their communities. Finally, although it is difficult to
evaluate the effect of bilingual assistance, in the absence of better data
on the extent to which the assistance is both used and helpful to voters
with limited-English proficiency, there is likely to continue to be debate
about the merits of bilingual voting assistance.
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for review and
comment. DOJ did not provide comments on the draft of this report but did
provide technical edits, which we incorporated where appropriate.
The EAC provided written comments on December 21, 2007, which are
presented in appendix VI. The EAC presented additional details on its
efforts to provide election officials and the public with information on
bilingual voting assistance.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Attorney General, the Commissioners of the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission, and other interested parties. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[51]www.gao.gov . Please contact William Jenkins at 202-512-8777 or
[52][email protected] if you or your staff have any questions concerning
this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
List of Congressional Committees
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert Bennett:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar S. Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Robert A. Brady:
Chairman:
The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers:
Ranking Member:
Committee on House Administration:
House of Representatives:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This review examined the provision of bilingual voting assistance by
selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.
Specifically, our objectives were to provide information on:
o the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203
of the Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance
as of the November 2006 general election, and the challenges they
reportedly faced in providing such assistance; and
o the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance,
and the extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the
usefulness of such assistance to language minority voters.
For both objectives, we conducted site visits or obtained information
electronically from 14 selected jurisdictions covered by Section 203.
However, before opting for this approach, we considered other options: (1)
a survey of all 296 covered Section 203 jurisdictions along with a
probability sample of all local government jurisdictions, including
cities, towns, school districts and relevant special districts, contained
within these covered jurisdictions that conduct their own local elections;
and (2) a survey of only the 296 jurisdictions listed in the Federal
Register, an option similar to the methodology we used in our 1997 report.
We chose to focus on the efforts of selected jurisdictions and not to
survey all jurisdictions for several reasons. First, while we had a list
of the 296 jurisdictions covered by Section 203, we were unable to locate
an inventory of the complete population of the sub-jurisdictions contained
within these jurisdictions that conducted their own elections from either
the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Census Bureau. The Chief of the
Census Bureau office that prepares the determinations for Section 203 of
the Voting Rights Act told us that it might be possible to develop an
inventory of all sub-jurisdictions contained within the 296 covered
jurisdictions through a complicated merge of Census' Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) system data files
with its Census of Local Government data files. However, she said the
Census of Local Government data do not indicate whether local governments
hold elections or, if they do, who administers the elections. Therefore,
to identify sub-jurisdictions that conduct their own elections and
contacts within these entities, we would have needed to either canvass
election officials in all 296 counties or other covered areas, as well as
state elections officers, or construct a population of all
sub-jurisdictions from Census Bureau data and then select a probability
sample of sub-jurisdictions to survey and develop our own contact
information. We believed this approach would have been very difficult,
costly, and time consuming. In addition, we learned that prior to
testimony given at the summer 2006 hearings for the reauthorization of the
Voting Rights Act, a team of researchers at the University of Arizona had
already surveyed all 296 jurisdictions listed in the Federal Register, in
addition to hundreds of other jurisdictions, about similar issues.^1 We
were reluctant to resurvey jurisdictions about related matters so soon
thereafter.
For our chosen methodology, we selected a sample of 14 covered
jurisdictions in 12 states. We selected these jurisdictions because they
reflected a variety of characteristics, such as size (i.e., voting age
population), geographic diversity, varying language minority groups and
their size relative to the voting age population, early voting provisions,
and the longevity of each jurisdiction's coverage under the Section 203
bilingual voting provisions; and, we wanted a diverse group of sites to
allow us to report on a wide range of jurisdictions' experiences with
providing bilingual voting assistance. (See table 9 for a listing of the
jurisdictions included in our study and the criteria used to select them.)
Because we selected a nongeneralizable sample of election jurisdictions,
the experiences and views discussed in this report cannot be generalized
to all 296 jurisdictions required to provide bilingual voting assistance
under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act or to the community-based
organizations (CBO) in these jurisdictions.
^1Dr. James Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, "Minority Language Assistance
Practices in Public Elections" (Arizona State University: Mar. 7, 2006).
Table 9: Jurisdictions Selected for GAO Site Visits and the Related
Information Used to Make the Selections
Jurisdiction Current
covered under Sec. language
Election 203 in year 2000 Current covered minority Census
jurisdiction for the first time? language group(s) subgroup(s) region
Boston No Spanish-heritage Hispanic Northeast
(Suffolk
County), MA
Cook County, No Spanish-heritage, Hispanic, Midwest
IL Asian American Chinese
Harris County, No Spanish-heritage, Hispanic, South
TX Asian American Vietnamese
Jackson Yes American Indian Sioux Midwest
County, SD
King County, Yes Asian American Chinese West
WA
Los Angeles No Spanish-heritage, Hispanic, West
County, CA Asian American Chinese,
Filipino,
Japanese,
Korean,
Vietnamese
Miami-Dade No Spanish-heritage Hispanic South
County, FL
Montgomery Yes Spanish-heritage Hispanic South
County, MD
Orange County, No Spanish-heritage, Hispanic, West
CA Asian American Chinese,
Korean,
Vietnamese
Kenai No Alaskan Native, Aleut, West
Peninsula American Indian American
Borough, AK Indian
Sandoval No American Indian Navajo, West
County, NM Pueblo
Seward County, Yes Spanish-heritage Hispanic Midwest
KS
Starr County, No Spanish-heritage Hispanic South
TX
Suffolk No Spanish-heritage Hispanic Northeast
County, NY
Covered
language
group(s)
voting age
Jurisdiction limited-
citizen English Recommended
voting age proficient Subject Uses by advocacy
population population Percentlimited-Englishproficient of DOJ early groups for
in 2000 in 2000 in 2000 action? voting? study?
388,580 11,820 3.0 Yes No Yes
3,429,235 143,175 4.2 No Yes Yes
1,964,970 124,885 6.4 Yes Yes Yes
655^a 25^a 3.8^a No No No
1,220,300 10,535 0.9 No Yes Yes
4,992,965 644,505 12.9 Yes^b Yes Yes
1,164,345 273,975 23.5 Yes Yes Yes
539,745 10,055 1.9 No No No
1,631,415 137,160 8.4 No Yes Yes
a a a No Yes No
6,670 2,525 37.9 Yes Yes Yes
11,715 1,160 9.9 No Yes Yes
22,600 10,050 44.5 No Yes No
978,075 16,685 1.7 Yes No No
Source: GAO analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, DOJ, local/state
officials, and national advocacy groups.
^aFor jurisdictions covered because of the American Indian Reservation
approach, population data are provided on citizens who are American
Indians or Alaska Natives in the part of the jurisdiction that is
contained within the Indian Reservation. A discussion of these criteria is
provided in appendix II.
^bThe DOJ actions involved subjurisdictions within Los Angeles County, not
the county itself.
^cPopulation data were not provided by the Census Bureau when the total
number of voting age citizens is less than 50.
Generally, we obtained information from the single office responsible for
conducting elections in each of these jurisdictions. However, in two
jurisdictions--Cook County, Ill., and Harris County, Tex.--we met with
officials in two separate offices because each office had separate
responsibilities for statewide and federal elections held in the
jurisdiction. In Cook County, the Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners
is responsible for administering these elections in the portion of Cook
County that is Chicago, and the Cook County Clerk is responsible for
administering elections in the remainder of Cook County. In Harris County,
the tax assessor/collector is responsible for voter registration, and the
County Clerk is responsible for the remainder of election activities. Due
to numerous scheduling conflicts, we were unable to arrange a visit to
Sandoval County, N. Mex.; however, we did obtain written responses to our
questions from an election official in Sandoval County via electronic
means. In one jurisdiction--Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska--we
interviewed not only a local government official who has responsibility
for local elections but also state officials, as the state has
responsibility for overseeing federal and statewide elections in Alaska
jurisdictions. Also, we selected 2 sub-jurisdictions among the 14 covered
jurisdictions to learn about the bilingual voting assistance these
localities provided in local elections. We identified these
sub-jurisdictions by asking election officials about what localities
within their jurisdictions conducted their own local elections. These
localities were: Los Angeles City, Calif., and Kadoka City, S. Dak.
In addition to obtaining information from election officials, we also
selected 38 CBOs that represent relevant language minority communities in
11 of the 14 jurisdictions.^2 We selected the CBOs through inquiries with
election officials, contacts with national level advocacy groups to learn
of local counterparts, contacts with the CBOs themselves to learn of
additional groups in their communities, and Internet searches. In our
discussions with representatives with a few CBOs, we were able also to
speak with a few language minority voters (in one case with the help of an
interpreter) who said they had used the bilingual assistance provided by
their jurisdiction.
We either conducted on-site interviews with or obtained information
electronically from election officials and CBO representatives regarding
the bilingual voting assistance provided in the November 2006 general
election and any subsequent elections through June 2007. Using a
semi-structured interview guide, we obtained information from the election
offices about
o office staff assigned to provide bilingual assistance;
o the office's strategy for identifying needs and providing
bilingual assistance;
o the type(s) and availability of bilingual assistance provided at
different stages of the election process for the November 2006
general election and any subsequent elections, including voter
education efforts, voter registration, early voting and absentee
voting, recruiting and training poll workers, ballot design and
voting systems, Election Day activities, and the usefulness of
this assistance to voters; and
o supporting documentation as evidence of the types of bilingual
voting assistance (e.g., sample ballots, pamphlets, voter
education materials, etc.) provided to language minority voters in
these jurisdictions.
^2After repeated attempts, we were unable to make contact with any CBOs in
Sandoval County, N. Mex., and Suffolk County, N.Y. Additionally, we were
unable to locate any CBOs in Starr County, Tex.
Using a semi-structured interview guide, we also obtained information from
CBO representatives about their roles in providing bilingual voting
assistance in the November 2006 general election and any subsequent
elections; their views about the bilingual assistance provided by the
election office in these elections; and the usefulness of this assistance.
We also interviewed officials and obtained documents from other relevant
parties. Interviews and documents were obtained from the DOJ Civil Rights
Division, which is responsible for providing program guidance and
enforcing compliance with the requirements under Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act. We also interviewed officials from the EAC, which was
established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to, among other things,
act as a clearinghouse and resource for information and review of
procedures with respect to the administration of federal elections.
Additionally, we interviewed the Chief of the Census Bureau office that
prepares the determinations for Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We
reviewed pertinent federal laws, regulations, and agency guidance
pertaining to the bilingual voting provisions. We also reviewed extensive
prior GAO work, other national studies, reports, and news articles;
attended several national conferences; and interviewed the secretary of
state for one state with jurisdictions covered by Section 203 to gain
further insight regarding these issues. We conducted this performance
audit from October 2006 to January 2008 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Appendix II: Section 203 Coverage Criteria Regarding Language Minority
Groups and Covered Jurisdictions
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides specific criteria for
determining which states and jurisdictions are covered by the Section 203
language minority provisions. The Director of the Census Bureau has
responsibility for making the official determinations regarding which
political subdivisions are covered under section 203. To make its
determinations, the Census Bureau reevaluates the jurisdictions covered by
Section 203 every 10 years using new Census data as they become available.
^1 The number of covered jurisdictions has risen from 227 in 1975, the
first year jurisdictions were required to comply with Section 203,^2 to
296 jurisdictions in 30 states in 2002, the year of the most recent
determination.^3 The Census Bureau uses classifications--states, counties,
minor civil divisions, or tribal areas--and variables such as voter age,
language proficiency, and citizenship as self-reported on Census forms to
determine the jurisdictions to be covered under Section 203. The following
material in figure 1 describes the coverage criteria.
^1The long form census, which had been used in coverage determinations,
will no longer be used by the Census Bureau after 2010. The American
Community Survey has replaced the long form and will be administered by
the Census Bureau annually. As a result, future determinations for
coverage under Section 203 will be made by the Director of the Census
based upon information compiled by the ACS on a rolling 5-year average.
^2 40 Fed. Reg. 41827 (1975). In addition to the 227 jurisdictions
identified in the 1975 determinations, the state of Alaska was also listed
as having statewide coverage for Native Alaskans but with no specific
jurisdictions identified as being covered.
^3 67 Fed. Reg. 48,872 (2002).
Figure 1: Section 203 Coverage Criteria for Implementation of the Voting
Rights Act Provisions Regarding Language Minority Groups
^aThe criteria for coverage are contained in Section 203(b).
The Director of the Census Bureau applied these criteria to the data
obtained from the 2000 census (the most recent census) to determine which
jurisdictions are covered under Section 203. The Director of the Census
Bureau identifies the relevant language groups for the covered
jurisdictions. Because the Census Bureau data used to determine the
covered language are self-reported, the specific language an individual
speaks is not always identified and thus jurisdictions may not know the
specific language for which they are to provide assistance. For example,
an individual may identify their language as "Indian language," but this
does not clarify for the jurisdiction what specific Indian language
assistance it is to provide. Also, some Section 203 covered jurisdictions
have more than one language group for which they are required to provide
voting assistance. (See table 10 for the list of jurisdictions covered
under Section 203 and the respective language groups, as of July 2002.)
Table 10: Jurisdictions Covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
State and political subdivision Language group
Alaska
Aleutians West Census Area Aleut
Bethel Census Area Eskimo
Bethel Census Area American Indian (Tribe not specified)
Bethel Census Area American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Denali Borough Athabascan
Dillingham Census Area Eskimo
Dillingham Census Area American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Dillingham Census Area Native (Other group specified)
Kenai Peninsula Borough American Indian (Tribe not specified)
Kenai Peninsula Borough Aleut
Kodiak Island Borough Filipino
Lake and Peninsula Borough Athabascan
Lake and Peninsula Borough Aleut
Lake and Peninsula Borough Eskimo
Nome Census Area Eskimo
North Slope Borough American Indian (Tribe not specified)
North Slope Borough Eskimo
Northwest Arctic Borough Eskimo
Northwest Arctic Borough Alaska Native (Other group specified)
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area Athabascan
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area Native (Other group specified
Valdez-Cordova Census Area Athabascan
Wade Hampton Census Area Eskimo
Wade Hampton Census Area American Indian (Chickasaw)
Wade Hampton Census Area American Indian (Tribe not specified)
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area Athabascan
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area Eskimo
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Arizona
Apache County American Indian (Apache)
Apache County American Indian (Navajo)
Apache County American Indian (Pueblo)
Cochise County Hispanic
Coconino County American Indian (Navajo)
Coconino County American Indian (Pueblo)
Gila County American Indian (Apache)
Graham County American Indian (Apache)
Greenlee County Hispanic
Maricopa County Hispanic
Maricopa County American Indian (Tohono O'Odham)
Navajo County American Indian (Apache)
Navajo County American Indian (Navajo)
Navajo County American Indian (Pueblo)
Pima County Hispanic
Pima County American Indian (Tohono O'Odham)
Pima County American Indian (Yaqui)
Pinal County American Indian (Apache)
Pinal County American Indian (Tohono O'Odham)
Santa Cruz County Hispanic
Yuma County Hispanic
Yuma County American Indian (Yuman)
California
State Coverage Hispanic
Alameda County Hispanic
Alameda County Chinese
Colusa County Hispanic
Contra Costa County Hispanic
Fresno County Hispanic
Imperial County Hispanic
Imperial County American Indian (Central or South
American)
Imperial County American Indian (Yuman)
Kern County Hispanic
Kings County Hispanic
Los Angeles County Hispanic
Los Angeles County Chinese
Los Angeles County Filipino
Los Angeles County Japanese
Los Angeles County Korean
Los Angeles County Vietnamese
Madera County Hispanic
Merced County Hispanic
Monterey County Hispanic
Orange County Hispanic
Orange County Chinese
Orange County Korean
Orange County Vietnamese
Riverside County Hispanic
Riverside County American Indian (Central or South
American)
Sacramento County Hispanic
San Benito County Hispanic
San Bernardino County Hispanic
San Diego County Hispanic
San Diego County Filipino
San Francisco County Hispanic
San Francisco County Chinese
San Joaquin County Hispanic
San Mateo County Hispanic
San Mateo County Chinese
Santa Barbara County Hispanic
Santa Clara County Hispanic
Santa Clara County Chinese
Santa Clara County Filipino
Santa Clara County Vietnamese
Stanislaus County Hispanic
Tulare County Hispanic
Ventura County Hispanic
Colorado
Alamosa County Hispanic
Conejos County Hispanic
Costilla County Hispanic
Crowley County Hispanic
Denver County Hispanic
La Plata County American Indian (Navajo)
La Plata County American Indian (Ute)
Montezuma County American Indian (Navajo)
Montezuma County American Indian (Ute)
Otero County Hispanic
Rio Grande County Hispanic
Saguache County Hispanic
Connecticut
Bridgeport town (Fairfield County) Hispanic
Hartford town (Hartford County) Hispanic
Meriden town (New Haven County) Hispanic
New Britain town (Hartford County) Hispanic
New Haven town (New Haven County) Hispanic
Waterbury town (New Haven County) Hispanic
Windham town (Windham County) Hispanic
Florida
Broward County Hispanic
Broward County American Indian (Seminole)
Collier County American Indian (Seminole)
Glades County American Indian (Seminole)
Hardee County Hispanic
Hendry County Hispanic
Hillsborough County Hispanic
Miami-Dade County Hispanic
Orange County Hispanic
Osceola County Hispanic
Palm Beach County Hispanic
Hawaii
Honolulu County Chinese
Honolulu County Filipino
Honolulu County Japanese
Maui County Filipino
Idaho
Bannock County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Bingham County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Caribou County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Owyhee County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Power County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Illinois
Cook County Hispanic
Cook County Chinese
Kane County Hispanic
Kansas
Finney County Hispanic
Ford County Hispanic
Grant County Hispanic
Haskell County Hispanic
Kearny County Hispanic
Seward County Hispanic
Louisiana
Allen Parish American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Maryland
Montgomery County Hispanic
Massachusetts
Boston city (Suffolk County) Hispanic
Chelsea city (Suffolk County) Hispanic
Holyoke city (Hampden County) Hispanic
Lawrence city (Essex County) Hispanic
Southbridge town (Worcester County) Hispanic
Springfield city (Hampden County) Hispanic
Michigan
Clyde township (Allegan County) Hispanic
Mississippi
Attala County American Indian (Choctaw)
Jackson County American Indian (Choctaw)
Jones County American Indian (Choctaw)
Kemper County American Indian (Choctaw)
Leake County American Indian (Choctaw)
Neshoba County American Indian (Choctaw)
Newton County American Indian (Choctaw)
Scott County American Indian (Choctaw)
Winston County American Indian (Choctaw)
Montana
Big Horn County American Indian (Cheyenne)
Rosebud County American Indian (Cheyenne)
Nebraska
Colfax County Hispanic
Sheridan County American Indian (Sioux)
Nevada
Clark County Hispanic
Elko County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Elko County American Indian (Shoshone)
Humboldt County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Lyon County American Indian (Paiute)
Nye County American Indian (Shoshone)
White Pine County American Indian (Shoshone)
New Jersey
Bergen County Hispanic
Cumberland County Hispanic
Essex County Hispanic
Hudson County Hispanic
Middlesex County Hispanic
Passaic County Hispanic
Union County Hispanic
New Mexico
State Coverage Hispanic
Bernalillo County Hispanic
Bernalillo County American Indian (Navajo)
Bernalillo County American Indian (Pueblo)
Catron County American Indian (Pueblo)
Chaves County Hispanic
Cibola County American Indian (Navajo)
Cibola County American Indian (Pueblo)
De Baca County Hispanic
Dona Ana County Hispanic
Eddy County Hispanic
Grant County Hispanic
Guadalupe County Hispanic
Harding County Hispanic
Hidalgo County Hispanic
Lea County Hispanic
Luna County Hispanic
McKinley County American Indian (Navajo)
McKinley County American Indian (Pueblo)
Mora County Hispanic
Rio Arriba County Hispanic
Rio Arriba County American Indian (Navajo)
Roosevelt County Hispanic
San Juan County American Indian (Navajo)
San Juan County American Indian (Ute)
San Miguel County Hispanic
Sandoval County American Indian (Navajo)
Sandoval County American Indian (Pueblo)
Santa Fe County Hispanic
Santa Fe County American Indian (Pueblo)
Socorro County Hispanic
Socorro County American Indian (Navajo)
Socorro County American Indian (Pueblo)
Taos County Hispanic
Taos County American Indian (Pueblo)
Torrance County Hispanic
Union County Hispanic
Valencia County Hispanic
Valencia County American Indian (Pueblo)
New York
Bronx County Hispanic
Kings County Hispanic
Kings County Chinese
Nassau County Hispanic
New York County Hispanic
New York County Chinese
Queens County Hispanic
Queens County Chinese
Queens County Korean
Suffolk County Hispanic
Westchester County Hispanic
North Dakota
Richland County American Indian (Sioux)
Sargent County American Indian (Sioux)
Oklahoma
Harmon County Hispanic
Texas County Hispanic
Oregon
Malheur County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia County Hispanic
Rhode Island
Central Falls city (Providence Hispanic
County)
Providence city (Providence County) Hispanic
South Dakota
Bennett County American Indian (Sioux)
Codington County American Indian (Sioux)
Day County American Indian (Sioux)
Dewey County American Indian (Sioux)
Grant County American Indian (Sioux)
Gregory County American Indian (Sioux)
Haakon County American Indian (Sioux)
Jackson County American Indian (Sioux)
Lyman County American Indian (Sioux)
Marshall County American Indian (Sioux)
Meade County American Indian (Sioux)
Meade County American Indian (Cheyenne)
Mellette County American Indian (Sioux)
Roberts County American Indian (Sioux)
Shannon County American Indian (Sioux)
Stanley County American Indian (Sioux)
Todd County American Indian (Sioux)
Tripp County American Indian (Sioux)
Ziebach County American Indian (Sioux)
Texas
State Coverage Hispanic
Andrews County Hispanic
Atascosa County Hispanic
Bailey County Hispanic
Bee County Hispanic
Bexar County Hispanic
Borden County Hispanic
Brewster County Hispanic
Brooks County Hispanic
Caldwell County Hispanic
Calhoun County Hispanic
Cameron County Hispanic
Castro County Hispanic
Cochran County Hispanic
Concho County Hispanic
Crane County Hispanic
Crockett County Hispanic
Crosby County Hispanic
Culberson County Hispanic
Dallas County Hispanic
Dawson County Hispanic
Deaf Smith County Hispanic
DeWitt County Hispanic
Dimmit County Hispanic
Duval County Hispanic
Ector County Hispanic
Edwards County Hispanic
El Paso County Hispanic
El Paso County American Indian (Pueblo)
Fisher County Hispanic
Floyd County Hispanic
Frio County Hispanic
Gaines County Hispanic
Garza County Hispanic
Glasscock County Hispanic
Goliad County Hispanic
Gonzales County Hispanic
Guadalupe County Hispanic
Hale County Hispanic
Hall County Hispanic
Hansford County Hispanic
Harris County Hispanic
Harris County Vietnamese
Hidalgo County Hispanic
Hockley County Hispanic
Howard County Hispanic
Hudspeth County Hispanic
Irion County Hispanic
Jeff Davis County Hispanic
Jim Hogg County Hispanic
Jim Wells County Hispanic
Karnes County Hispanic
Kenedy County Hispanic
Kinney County Hispanic
Kleberg County Hispanic
Knox County Hispanic
Lamb County Hispanic
La Salle County Hispanic
Live Oak County Hispanic
Loving County Hispanic
Lubbock County Hispanic
Lynn County Hispanic
Madison County Hispanic
Martin County Hispanic
Matagorda County Hispanic
Maverick County Hispanic
Maverick County American Indian (Other tribe
specified)
McMullen County Hispanic
Medina County Hispanic
Menard County Hispanic
Midland County Hispanic
Mitchell County Hispanic
Moore County Hispanic
Nolan County Hispanic
Nueces County Hispanic
Parmer County Hispanic
Pecos County Hispanic
Presidio County Hispanic
Reagan County Hispanic
Reeves County Hispanic
Refugio County Hispanic
Runnels County Hispanic
San Patricio County Hispanic
Schleicher County Hispanic
Scurry County Hispanic
Starr County Hispanic
Sterling County Hispanic
Sutton County Hispanic
Swisher County Hispanic
Tarrant County Hispanic
Terrell County Hispanic
Terry County Hispanic
Titus County Hispanic
Tom Green County Hispanic
Travis County Hispanic
Upton County Hispanic
Uvalde County Hispanic
Val Verde County Hispanic
Victoria County Hispanic
Ward County Hispanic
Webb County Hispanic
Wharton County Hispanic
Willacy County Hispanic
Wilson County Hispanic
Winkler County Hispanic
Yoakum County Hispanic
Zapata County Hispanic
Zavala County Hispanic
Utah
San Juan County American Indian (Navajo)
San Juan County American Indian (Ute)
Washington
Adams County Hispanic
Franklin County Hispanic
King County Chinese
Yakima County Hispanic
Source: Federal Register (67 Fed. Reg. 48,871-48,877 (2002) (codified in
appendix to 28 C.F.R. Part 55)).
Note: In the cases where a state is identified as covered, those counties
or county equivalents not displayed in the table are exempt from the
obligation.
Appendix III: DOJ Actions under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act,
1980-2007
Jurisdiction State Date Type of action
County and City of San Francisco CA 1980 Consent decree
San Juan County UT 1984 Memorandum of agreement^a
McKinley County NM 1986 Consent decree^b
State of Arizona AZ 1989 Consent decree^c
New Mexico and Sandoval County NM 1990 Consent decree^d
Dade (Metropolitan) County FL 1993 Consent decree
Cibola County NM 1993 Stipulation and order^e
Socorro County NM 1993 Consent decree
Alameda County CA 1996 Settlement agreement and
order
San Juan County NM 1996 Memorandum of agreement
Bernalillo County NM 1998 Consent decree^f
City of Lawrence MA 1999 Settlement agreement and
order
County and City of Passaic NJ 1999 Consent decree^g
Orange County FL 2002 Consent decree
Brentwood Union Free School District NY 2003 Consent decree
San Benito County CA 2004 Consent decree
San Diego County CA 2004 Consent decree
Ventura County CA 2004 Consent decree
Suffolk County NY 2004 Consent decree
Harris County TX 2004 Memorandum of agreement
Yakima County WA 2004 Consent decree
City of Azusa CA 2005 Consent decree
City of Paramount CA 2005 Consent decree
City of Rosemead CA 2005 Consent decree
City of Boston MA 2005 Memorandum of agreement
Westchester County NY 2005 Consent decree
Cochise County AZ 2006 Consent decree
Maricopa County AZ 2006 Memorandum of agreement
Broward County FL 2006 Memorandum of agreement
City of Springfield MA 2006 Consent decree
City of Philadelphia PA 2006 Complaint
Hale County TX 2006 Consent decree
Kane County IL 2007 Consent decree
City of Walnut CA 2007 Complaint
City of Earth TX 2007 Complaint
Seagraves Independent School District TX 2007 Complaint
Littlefield Independent School TX 2007 Complaint
District
Post Independent School District TX 2007 Complaint
Smyer Independent School District TX 2007 Complaint
Source: DOJ officials.
^aConsent decree was amended in 1990.
^bConsent decree was amended in 1990.
^cConsent decree amended in 1993.
^dConsent decree modified in 1994 and again in 2004.
^eAgreement was extended in 2004.
^fConsent decree extended in 2003.
^gAdditional criteria set forth in supplemental consent decree in 2001.
Appendix IV: Examples of Bilingual Voting Written Assistance Materials
The following are excerpted examples of bilingual voting materials
provided by election officials in covered jurisdictions.
Figure 2: Excerpt of a Chinese Voter Registration Form - King County,
Wash.
Figure 3: English/Chinese Bilingual Absentee Ballot Request Form - King
County, Wash.
Figure 4: English/Vietnamese Bilingual Sample Ballot - Boston, Mass.
Figure 5: English/Spanish Bilingual Official Ballot - Boston, Mass.
Figure 6: Spanish Voting Instructions - Los Angeles, Calif.
Figure 7: Bilingual Polling Place Signs - King County, Wash.
Figure 8: Bilingual Poll Worker Nametags and Buttons - Orange County,
Calif.
Figure 9: Multilingual Tally Card - Los Angeles, Calif.
Appendix V: Additional Challenges to Evaluating the Usefulness of
Bilingual Voting Assistance
In addition to the three key issues discussed earlier in this report,
other difficult issues also face election offices in evaluating the
bilingual voting assistance they provide, including: (1) how to
appropriately sample, or select, polling places and language minority
voters to include in an evaluation; (2) the receptivity of language
minority voters to participation in a study; (3) having data collectors
who can speak fluently the specific language, and possibly dialect, of
language minority voters in a jurisdiction; (4) having the necessary staff
and technical expertise to conduct a methodologically sound evaluation;
and (5) the likely expense of an evaluation.
o Determining how to sample: When determining how to gather data
from the language minority voting population, a jurisdiction must
decide whether to conduct a census (collect data from everyone) or
to select a sample of the population from whom to get information.
Depending on various factors, including the numbers of precincts
and the numbers of voters in the jurisdiction, collecting
information from all members of a given population, such as all
language minority voters could be very costly, as well as
logistically difficult to do in evaluating the usefulness of
bilingual voting assistance. Therefore, selecting a probability or
nonprobability sample can be a more cost-effective alternative.^1
For example, if a jurisdiction was unable to collect data from all
voters on Election Day, it could select a probability sample of
voters in an exit poll. To be able to generalize the results to
all language minority voters, such an exit poll would need to be
based on a probability sample of precincts in the jurisdiction and
voters voting within each selected precinct throughout Election
Day. Alternatively, jurisdictions could collect information from
language minority voters through methods such as comment cards
soliciting feedback about bilingual voting placed on tables in
precincts on Election Day, or they could log individuals' calls to
a telephone hotline to report voting problems. While useful
information could be obtained, there would be no guarantee that
the voters who completed the cards or called the hotline were
statistically representative of all voters who used the bilingual
voting assistance. As a result, a jurisdiction would need to be
cautious about interpreting the information obtained from this
source because the information could be biased.
o Identifying willing participants: It is necessary to have
language minority voters who are receptive to participation in an
evaluation. In some locations, language minority voters may be
sensitive about their English language skills, and consequently,
there may be some embarrassment about needing to use bilingual
voting assistance or about the extent to which the assistance is
helpful. In these instances, it may be difficult to get language
minority voters to cooperate, or, if they do cooperate, difficult
to obtain accurate information about their experiences in using
the assistance provided.
o Obtaining data collectors with language skills: Any evaluation
of bilingual voting assistance must use individuals trained in
data collection methods. These individuals would also need to
speak fluently the specific language, and possibly dialect, spoken
by language minority voters in a jurisdiction in order to
effectively communicate with language minority voters asked to
participate in a study.
o Having the necessary staff: Election offices face the difficult
issues of having the necessary staff and technical expertise to
conduct methodologically sound evaluations in evaluating the
effectiveness of the bilingual voting assistance provided. Since
the purpose of election offices is to conduct elections, it is
unlikely that election offices will have staff available who
either have the time or professional expertise to conduct an
evaluation. Therefore, election offices would likely need to seek
outside professional assistance, such as through a contract with a
consultant, to do so.
o Having sufficient resources: Efforts to evaluate program
effectiveness can be expensive. Unless an election office received
special funding to evaluate its bilingual assistance program, it
would likely have to rely on existing operating budgets that may
already be limited. Officials in five jurisdictions said they had
no money or staff to evaluate the assistance they provided. The
election administrator in one jurisdiction stated that their top
funding priorities were for operational needs, not for conducting
such a study.
^1 A probability sample, sometimes referred to as a statistical or random
sample, is a sample in which each member in the population has a known
chance, or probability, of being selected. If the objective of an
evaluation is to make generalizations or draw conclusions about an entire
population, without using a census, a probability sample could be used to
do this. In a nonprobability sample, members in the population have no
chance, or an unknown chance, of being selected. The major limitation of
nonprobability samples is that the results cannot be used to make
inferences, or generalizations, about a population.
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
William O. Jenkins, Jr. (202) 512-8777 or [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above, Dawn E. Hoff, Assistant Director; David
Alexander, Assistant Director; Claudia K. Becker; Natalie Chaney; Geoffrey
Hamilton; Linda Miller; Hugh C. Paquette; Deena D. Richart; and Clarence
Tull, Sr., made key contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products:
Elections: Further Testing Could Provide Increased but Not Absolute
Assurance That Voting Systems Did Not Cause Undervotes in Florida's
13th Congressional District. GAO-08-97T. Washington, D.C.: October 2,
2007.
Elections: Status of GAO's Review of Voting Equipment Used in Florida's
13th Congressional District. GAO-07-1167T. Washington, D.C.: August 3,
2007.
Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in
Electronic Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas
Citizens. GAO-07-774. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic
Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2007.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic
Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-576T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2007.
Elections: DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee Voters,
but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-1134T. Washington, D.C.: September 28,
2006.
Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in the
November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6,
2006.
Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens
Increased for 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-521.
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.
Election Reform: Nine States' Experiences Implementing Federal
Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists. GAO-
06-247. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2006.
Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter
Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997.
Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.
Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of
Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be
Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.
Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections
Officials Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478.
Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Department of Justice's Activities to Address Past Election-Related
Voting Irregularities. GAO-04-1041R. Washington, D.C.: September 14,
2004.
Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents
Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90.
Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges across the Nation.
GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Statistical Analysis of Factors That Affected Uncounted
Votes in the 2000 Presidential Election. GAO-02-122. Washington, D.C.:
October 15, 2001.
Elections: Status and Use of Federal Voting Equipment Standards. GAO-
02-52. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative
Voting Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should
Be Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Comparison of Voting Age Population to Registered Voters in the 40
Largest U.S. Counties. GAO-01-560R. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election
Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs. GAO/GGD-97-
81. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1997.
Puerto Rico: Confusion over Applicability of the Electoral Law to
Referendum Process. HRD-93-84. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 1993.
Voting: Some Procedural Changes and Informational Activities Could
Increase Turnout. PEMD-91-1. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 1990.
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Costs of and Use during the November 1984
General Election. GGD-86-134BR. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 1986.
Justice Can Further Improve Its Monitoring of Changes in State/Local
Voting Laws. GGD-84-9. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 1983.
(440552)
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [76]GAO-08-182 .
For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8777 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [77]GAO-08-182 , a report to congressional committees
January 2008
BILINGUAL VOTING ASSISTANCE
Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing
Assistance
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, contains, among other things,
provisions designed to protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens of
certain ethnic groups whose command of the English language may be
limited. The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces these provisions, and
the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) serves as a national
clearinghouse for election information and procedures. The Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 mandated that GAO study the
implementation of bilingual voting under Section 203 of the act. This
report discusses (1) the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting
assistance as of the November 2006 general election and any subsequent
elections through June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly faced in
providing such assistance; and (2) the perceived usefulness of this
bilingual voting assistance, and the extent to which the selected
jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of such assistance to language
minority voters. To obtain details about this voting assistance, GAO
obtained information from election officials in 14 of the 296
jurisdictions required to provide it, as well as from community
representatives in 11 of these jurisdictions. These jurisdictions were
selected to reflect a range of characteristics such as geographic
diversity and varying language minority groups.
All but 1 of the 14 election jurisdictions GAO contacted reported
providing some form of oral or written bilingual voting assistance through
such things as the use of bilingual poll workers, and each of the 14
jurisdictions reported challenges in providing assistance. Election
offices reported providing similar types of oral and written bilingual
voting assistance at each stage of the voting process--from voter
registration to Election Day--for the November 2006 and subsequent
elections. In nine of the jurisdictions, this bilingual assistance was
supplemented by efforts of community-based organizations. In part because
DOJ guidance intentionally provides jurisdictions flexibility in how they
implement bilingual voting requirements, election offices used varied
strategies to implement bilingual programs. Election officials in each of
the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in implementing bilingual
assistance programs, including difficulty in recruiting bilingual poll
workers and effectively targeting where to provide bilingual voting
assistance. Officials in nine jurisdictions also noted they would benefit
from additional guidance for providing bilingual assistance. The EAC has
taken steps to provide additional guidance to jurisdictions, including
plans to develop a set of management guidelines for jurisdictions to use
in implementing their programs.
GAO identified little quantitative data measuring the usefulness of
various types of bilingual voting assistance. Election officials and
community-based organization representatives noted that certain forms of
assistance, such as having bilingual poll workers, were more useful than
others. Some jurisdictions stated that modifications, including outreach
to language minority groups, would improve the usefulness of bilingual
assistance. While none of the 14 jurisdictions had attempted to formally
evaluate their assistance, most reported gathering information about the
usefulness of certain aspects of the assistance. While formal evaluations
have proven to be a successful means to improve program effectiveness,
conducting formal evaluations of the usefulness and effect of bilingual
voting assistance is difficult. Key difficulties include identifying the
appropriate indicators of success and isolating the effects of bilingual
assistance efforts on voters from other influences on election processes.
We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for comment. DOJ
provided no comments, and the EAC's comments described its recent
activities on bilingual voting assistance.
Examples of Bilingual Assistance: Polling Place Signage and Poll Worker
Name Tag
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [78]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[79]www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
DC 20548
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: [80]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [81][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [82][email protected] , (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [83][email protected] , (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
DC 20548
References
Visible links
46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-450
47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-86-134BR
48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-81
49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-450
50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38
51. http://www.gao.gov/
52. mailto:[email protected]
53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-97T
54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1167T
55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-774
56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-741T
57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-576T
58. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1134T
59. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-450
60. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-521
61. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-247
62. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-997
63. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-956
64. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-478
65. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1041R
66. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-975T
67. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-90
68. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-3
69. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-122
70. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-52
71. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-107
72. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-1026
73. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-560R
74. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-470
75. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-81
76. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-182
77. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-182
78. http://www.gao.gov/
79. http://www.gao.gov/
80. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
81. mailto:[email protected]
82. mailto:[email protected]
83. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***