Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs (Letter
Report, 05/09/97, GAO/GGD-97-81).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed aspects of the
implementation of bilingual language provisons of the Voting Rights Act,
focusing on: (1) the types of assistance jurisdictions provided for the
1996 general election; and (2) actual cost that covered jurisdictions
incurred to provide bilingual voting assistance in 1996 and prior years,
if available.

GAO noted that: (1) of the 292 jurisdictions that responded to GAO's
survey, 272 reported providing bilingual voting assistance for the 1996
general election; (2) of the 292 respondents, 213 said that they
provided both written and oral bilingual voting assistance to their
minority language voters, 45 said that they provided written assistance
only, 14 said that they provided oral assistance only, and 20 said they
did not provide any assistance; (3) with respect to the jurisdictions
not providing any assistance, 5 said they tried, but were unable to
identify individuals needing assistance, 13 said that no one needed
assistance or that no one had ever sought assistance, and 2 believed
that they had been exempted from providing assistance; (4) in addition,
five jurisdictions and two states reported furnishing bilingual voting
assistance to groups that the act did not require them to assist; (5) in
addition to assistance provided by jurisdictions, states may also
provide assistance, such as translation of state election propositions
or translated sample ballots; (6) 12 of the 26 states that responded
said that they furnished some bilingual voting assistance; (7) the 14
remaining states reported that they provided no bilingual voting
assistance; (8) in addition, some states, such as California (CA) and
New Jersey, have adopted their own laws requiring bilingual voting
assistance; (9) as the act does not require covered jurisdictions and
states to maintain data on the costs of providing bilingual, information
provided by the surveyed jurisdictions and states on their costs was
scant; (10) of the 272 jurisdictions that reported providing assistance
in 1996, 208 were unable to provide information on their costs; (11) of
the 64 jurisdictions that reported cost information, only 34 provided
information on total costs and the remainder provided partial costs;
(12) the 34 jurisdictions' reported costs varied greatly; (13) of the 12
states that provided assistance, only Hawaii and Florida reported their
total costs for providing bilingual voting assistance in 1996; (14)
Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, and Rhode Island (RI)
reported partial cost data; (15) only 29 jurisdictions and 6 states
provided some data on election year costs for 1992 to 1995; (15)
moreover, the amounts jurisdictions reported spending on bilingual
voting assistance in prior years varied widely; and (16) the amounts st*

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-97-81
     TITLE:  Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs
      DATE:  05/09/97
   SUBJECT:  State programs
             Local governments
             Elections
             Foreign languages
             Administrative costs
             Hispanics
             Minorities
IDENTIFIER:  Alaska
             Arizona
             Texas
             Hawaii
             New York (NY)
             Florida
             Massachusetts
             Michigan
             New Mexico
             Rhode Island
             Central Falls (RI)
             Los Angeles County (CA)
             Gila (AZ)
             California
             Connecticut
             New Jersey
             North Dakota
             Colorado
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Honorable
John Edward Porter
House of Representatives

May 1997

BILINGUAL VOTING ASSISTANCE -
ASSISTANCE PROVIDED AND COSTS

GAO/GGD-97-81

Bilingual Voting Assistance Provided and Costs

(182028)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV


Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-275220

May 9, 1997

The Honorable John Edward Porter
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Porter: 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C.  1973 et seq.),
was enacted to, among other things, protect the voting rights of U.S. 
citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the English
language may be limited (minority language groups).  The act's
"bilingual voting assistance requirements" apply to ethnic groups in
422 "covered jurisdictions"--most of which are counties--in 28
states.\1 Critics of the bilingual provisions have charged that the
implementation of these requirements has been costly and has been of
questionable benefit in increasing voter turnout of the targeted
ethnic groups. 

This report responds to your request that we review two aspects of
the implementation of bilingual language provisions of the act.  You
asked that we determine (1) the types of assistance jurisdictions
provided for the 1996 general election; and (2) the actual cost that
covered jurisdictions incurred to provide bilingual voting assistance
in 1996,\2 and in prior years, if available. 

To determine the types of assistance jurisdictions provided and the
related costs, we surveyed election officials representing each
covered jurisdiction and each state that had covered jurisdictions. 
In all, we solicited responses from election officials in 28 states
and 391 covered jurisdictions.\3 See appendix I for a detailed
discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology.  In total, 26
states and 292 covered jurisdictions responded to our questionnaires,
a response rate of 93 percent and 75 percent, respectively.\4 (See
app.  II). 

The information contained in this report is limited to the data
provided by the states and jurisdictions that responded to our
survey.  To the extent practical, we attempted to verify the
completeness and accuracy of the responses.  Where a response to a
question was inconsistent with other answers elsewhere in the survey
or where a respondent failed to answer a question, we contacted them
to clarify or determine the response.  On cost questions, we
requested that respondents only provide actual costs for which they
had supporting documentation, not cost estimates.  In a number of
cases jurisdictions provided us documentation supporting their costs;
additional details are provided in appendix I (see page 34).  Because
the jurisdictions that reported costs were geographically dispersed,
it was not practical to further verify the costs reported. 

For both objectives, the survey was affected by variables which limit
the responses' generalizability.  For example, the covered
jurisdictions varied in (1) the number of polling locations where
bilingual voting assistance was provided, (2) the size of the
populations in need of assistance, and (3) the number of minority
groups for whom assistance was required.  Accordingly, comparisons
across jurisdictions are not meaningful and the responses of states
and covered jurisdictions cannot be projected or generalized to
nonresponding jurisdictions. 

On April 9, 1997, we requested comments from the Attorney General or
her designee on a draft of this report.  On April 18, 1997, the Chief
of the Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, on behalf of the
Attorney General, provided technical information, which we
incorporated where appropriate.  We did our work in Washington, D.C.,
from July 1996 through April 1997 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 Alaska, Arizona, and Texas are the only states in which the act's
provisions apply to all jurisdictions in the state. 

\2 We requested that covered jurisdictions provide information on the
actual costs of providing bilingual voting assistance during 1996,
including primary election and early voting period costs. 

\3 For the 25 covered jurisdictions in Alaska (as determined by the
1990 Census) and the 3 covered jurisdictions in Hawaii, state
election officials requested that they be permitted to respond for
the jurisdictions; in both Alaska and Hawaii, the state and not the
local jurisdictions is responsible for election administration. 
Their responses are contained in discussions of state assistance.  In
addition, New York City Board of Election officials agreed to provide
a response for four covered jurisdictions--Bronx, Kings, Queens, and
New York Counties.  Their response is included in the discussions on
jurisdiction assistance.  Thus, 422 covered jurisdictions, in total,
were represented by the jurisdictions and states to which we mailed
surveys. 

\4 All percentages in this report have been rounded to the nearest
percentage point. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Of the 292 jurisdictions that responded to our survey, 272 reported
providing bilingual voting assistance for the 1996 general election. 
Of the 292 respondents, 213 said that they provided both written and
oral bilingual voting assistance to their minority language voters;
45 said that they provided written assistance only; 14 said that they
provided oral assistance only; and 20 said they did not provide any
assistance.  With respect to the jurisdictions not providing any
assistance, 5 said that they tried but were unable to identify
individuals needing assistance; 13 said that no one needed assistance
or that no one had ever sought assistance; and 2 believed that they
had been exempted from providing assistance.  In addition, five
jurisdictions and two states reported furnishing bilingual voting
assistance to groups that the act did not require them to assist. 

Of the 258 jurisdictions that reported providing written assistance: 

  -- 94 percent said that they provided bilingual or separate
     translated ballots;

  -- 87 percent said that they provided bilingual or translated
     voting instructions;

  -- 71 percent said that they provided bilingual or translated signs
     at polling places; and,

  -- 70 percent said that they placed bilingual notices in
     newspapers. 

Of the 227 jurisdictions that reported providing oral assistance: 

  -- 82 percent reported that bilingual employees worked in their
     offices or at the polls to provide assistance;

  -- 15 percent reported that they used volunteer assistants; and,

  -- 13 percent reported that they hired special interpreters. 

In addition to assistance provided by jurisdictions, states may also
provide assistance, such as translations of state election
propositions or translated sample ballots.  Twelve of the 26 states
that responded said that they furnished some bilingual voting
assistance.  The 14 remaining states reported that they provided no
bilingual voting assistance.  In addition, some states, such as
California and New Jersey, have adopted their own laws requiring
bilingual voting assistance. 

As the act does not require covered jurisdictions and states to
maintain data on the costs of providing bilingual voting assistance,
information provided by the surveyed jurisdictions and states on
their costs was scant.  Of the 272 jurisdictions that reported
providing assistance in 1996, 208 were unable to provide information
on their costs.  Of the 64 jurisdictions that reported cost
information, only 34 provided information on total costs and the
remainder provided partial costs.  The 34 jurisdictions' reported
costs varied greatly.  For example, several counties which reported
providing oral language assistance reported no additional costs, as
they used bilingual workers to provide assistance.  Conversely, Los
Angeles County, CA, which reported providing written and oral
bilingual assistance in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and
Tagalog (a Philippine language) at over 5,600 polling places,
reported additional costs exceeding $1.1 million. 

Of the 12 states that provided assistance, only Hawaii and Florida
reported their total costs for providing bilingual voting assistance
in 1996.  Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, and Rhode
Island reported partial cost data.  Hawaii and Florida reported costs
for bilingual voting assistance in 1996 of $23,328 and $7,900,
respectively. 

Only 29 jurisdictions and 6 states provided some data on election
year costs for 1992 to 1995.  For example, 28 jurisdictions reported
1994 election year costs and 12 jurisdictions reported 1995 costs. 
Moreover, the amounts jurisdictions reported spending on bilingual
voting assistance in prior years varied widely-- ranging from no
costs for a 1995 election in Central Falls, RI, to $764,900 for the
1994 elections in Los Angeles County, CA.  The amounts states
reported also varied by year. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In 1975, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act and extended its
coverage to protect the voting rights of citizens of certain ethnic
groups whose language is other than English.  The act's language
minority provisions require states and covered jurisdictions--
political subdivisions--that meet the act's coverage criteria to
conduct elections in the language of certain "minority language
groups" in addition to English.  The act defined these language
minorities as persons of Spanish heritage, American Indians, Asian
Americans, and Alaskan Natives. 

Where the applicable minority groups have a commonly used written
language, the act requires covered jurisdictions to provide written
election materials in the languages of the groups.  For American
Indians and Alaskan Natives whose languages are unwritten, only oral
assistance and publicity, e.g., public information spots on the
radio, are required.  All covered jurisdictions must provide oral
assistance when needed in the minority language.  Both written and
oral assistance must be available throughout the election process
from registration to election day activities and are required for all
federal, state, and local elections. 

According to the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section, the
objective of the act's bilingual assistance provisions, in the
Attorney General's view, is to enable members of applicable language
minority groups to participate effectively in the electoral process. 
Further, according to the Section, jurisdictions should take all
reasonable steps to achieve the goal, but they are not required to
provide bilingual assistance that would not further that goal.  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 bilingual assistance. 

The implementation of the act by states and jurisdictions could vary
depending on the extent that the states provide assistance.  For
example, where states provide ballot translations for national and
state issues and offices, the covered jurisdictions only have to
translate the portions of ballot issues and offices that pertain to
them.  Where states provide no assistance, the responsibility for
assistance falls entirely to the jurisdictions. 

The act, as amended, contains two sections--4(f)(4) and 203(c)--which
provide specific criteria for determining which states and
jurisdictions are to be covered by the bilingual voting provisions. 
The act designates the Attorney General or the Director of the Census
to make these determinations (see app.  III).  In total, 422
jurisdictions in 28 states were covered during 1996.  These included
three states--Alaska (Alaskan Natives), Arizona (Spanish heritage),
and Texas (Spanish heritage)--which were covered statewide (i.e., the
act's provisions apply to all political subdivisions within the
state).  Figure 1 illustrates the number of covered jurisdictions in
each state. 

   Figure 1:  Locations of Covered
   Jurisdictions by State

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Department of Justice and Bureau of Census data. 

Some covered jurisdictions have more than one ethnic group for which
they are required to provide minority language voting assistance. 
Figure 2 shows the number of minority language groups by ethnicity
within the 422 covered jurisdictions. 

   Figure 2:  Number of Minority
   Language Groups by Ethnicity in
   Covered Jurisdictions

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Jurisdictions with multiple language minorities within the
same ethnic group are counted only once.  Thus, if a jurisdiction
contained Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese American minorities, it
is only counted once as an Asian American jurisdiction.  However, if
it contained Hispanics and Chinese Americans, it is counted as both a
Spanish heritage and an Asian American jurisdiction. 

Source:  GAO analysis of the Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR
Ch.1). 

The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is to oversee the
covered states and jurisdictions' implementation of the act.  Where
states and jurisdictions fail to comply with the provisions, the
Department of Justice may bring civil action to attain compliance
with the bilingual language provisions.\5


--------------------
\5 Individuals also have a right to bring civil actions to obtain
relief. 


   ASSISTANCE JURISDICTIONS AND
   STATES REPORTED PROVIDING IN
   1996
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Most jurisdictions that reported providing bilingual voting
assistance in the 1996 general election said that they provided both
written and oral assistance.  As shown in figure 3, about 73 percent
of the 292 jurisdictions responding reported that they provided both
written and oral assistance.  Seven percent reported that they did
not provide bilingual voting assistance for the 1996 general election
(see page 13).  Moreover, five jurisdictions that reported providing
assistance also reported providing assistance to other language
minority groups that the act did not require them to assist. 

   Figure 3:  Percent of
   Jurisdictions Reporting Various
   Types of Bilingual Voting
   Assistance for the 1996 General
   Election

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO survey. 

For 14 jurisdictions that reported providing oral assistance only,
the act required 12 to provide assistance to American Indian groups. 
In addition, some jurisdictions that reported providing written and
oral assistance actually provided assistance to more than one covered
ethnic group, and depending on the group assisted, the type of
assistance they provided may have varied.  For example, Gila, AZ,
reported providing written and oral assistance to Hispanics but only
oral assistance to Apache Indians whose language is not written to
the extent needed for election translation. 

Twenty-six of the 28 states surveyed responded.  Of the responding
states, 12 reported providing bilingual voting assistance.  In
addition, some states had passed their own legislation requiring some
form of bilingual voting assistance (see page 15).  Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Texas
reported providing both written and oral assistance.  Florida,
Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island reported providing written
assistance only.  And, Alaska reported providing oral assistance
only.  Moreover, two states, California and Hawaii, reported
providing assistance to groups that the act did not require them to
assist. 


      WRITTEN ASSISTANCE REPORTED
      BY JURISDICTIONS AND STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

As shown in figures 4 and 5, bilingual ballots were the most frequent
type of written assistance reported by jurisdictions and bilingual
voting instructions were the single most frequent written assistance
reported by states.  Of the 258 jurisdictions that reported providing
written assistance, 231 reported providing bilingual ballots.  Of the
11 states that reported providing written assistance, 7 reported
providing bilingual voting instructions.  However, among
jurisdictions, the types of bilingual voting assistance they reported
providing ranged from ballot assistance alone to all voting materials
provided to voters. 

   Figure 4:  Types of Written
   Bilingual Voting Assistance
   Jurisdictions Reported for the
   1996 General Election

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  More than one type of assistance may have been provided. 

\a Other assistance includes translated materials such as state
propositions and analyses and candidate statements. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

   Figure 5:  Types of Written
   Bilingual Voting Assistance
   States Reported for the 1996
   General Election

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  More than one type of assistance may have been provided. 

\a Other assistance includes, for example, translations of
propositions, constitutional amendments, and forms. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

Appendix IV provides examples of translated voting instructions that
were provided to some minority language voters and a portion of a
bilingual ballot. 


      ORAL ASSISTANCE
      JURISDICTIONS AND STATES
      REPORTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Almost all jurisdictions and states that provided minority language
oral assistance did so by hiring bilingual poll and office workers or
using the assistance of volunteers.  Of the 227 jurisdictions that
reported providing minority language oral assistance, 187 reported
that they had hired bilingual workers and 35 reported that they used
the assistance of volunteers.  In addition, 13 jurisdictions reported
providing minority language tapes describing the ballot and/or voting
instructions.  Of the eight states providing bilingual oral
assistance, four employed bilingual workers and two hired
interpreters to provide assistance.  Figures 6 and 7 show the types
of oral assistance provided by 227 jurisdictions and 8 states,
respectively. 

   Figure 6:  Types of Bilingual
   Oral Assistance Jurisdictions
   Reported for the 1996 General
   Election

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  More than one type of assistance may have been provided. 

\a Other includes radio announcements; a telephone hotline; and
bilingual officials in other offices who could assist, if needed. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

   Figure 7:  Types of Bilingual
   Oral Assistance States Reported
   for the 1996 General Election

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  More than one type of assistance may have been provided. 

\a Other includes public service announcements, telephone assistance,
and additional special bilingual assistants. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

Twenty-eight of the 227 responding jurisdictions reporting oral
assistance provided this assistance to American Indian groups.  In
addition, the state of Alaska reported providing oral assistance to
American Indian groups in six jurisdictions.  Of these 34
jurisdictions, only 4 reported providing bilingual written materials
as well as oral assistance to the American Indian groups. 


      SOME COVERED JURISDICTIONS
      REPORTED PROVIDING NO
      BILINGUAL ASSISTANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Although the jurisdictions that we surveyed were designated to
provide bilingual voting assistance, 20 jurisdictions reported that
they did not do so for the 1996 general election.  They reported not
providing assistance because they said that they (1) were unable to
locate or identify individuals in their areas needing assistance (5
jurisdictions), (2) were not contacted by individuals in need of
assistance or did not know of individuals needing assistance (13
jurisdictions), or (3) believed they had been exempted from providing
assistance (2 jurisdictions). 

Of the 20 jurisdictions that reported not providing assistance, 17
were designated to provide it to American Indian groups and 3 were
designated to provide it to Spanish heritage groups.  Three of the
jurisdictions designated to provide assistance to American Indian
groups responded that they had contacted tribal officials to identify
those in need of assistance but were told that no need existed. 
Another jurisdiction said that it had conducted a telephone survey of
registered voters but was unable to find anyone in need of
assistance.  Further, 11 of the 20 jurisdictions indicated that
should someone seek assistance, they had interpreters who were on
call or could otherwise provide assistance. 

According to the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section, one should
interpret with care a jurisdiction's response to the survey that it
did not provide bilingual voting assistance.  Most of the
jurisdictions that indicated they had not provided bilingual voting
assistance had relatively few members of the applicable language
group, and the Attorney General's minority language guidelines
explain that the objective of the bilingual provisions is "to enable
members of applicable language minority groups to participate
effectively in the electoral process." Accordingly, the Section said
further inquiry would be needed to determine whether such a
jurisdiction has violated the bilingual requirements of the act. 


      SOME JURISDICTIONS AND
      STATES REPORTED PROVIDING
      ASSISTANCE TO GROUPS THAT
      WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE
      COVERED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

Five jurisdictions and two states reported that in addition to
providing assistance to minority language groups, as required under
the act, they also furnished assistance to other groups.  Table 1
identifies the jurisdictions and states that reported providing
assistance to other groups and the groups that they assisted. 



                                Table 1
                
                 Jurisdictions and States that Reported
                     Assisting Other Groups in 1996

                                Groups required to  Other groups
Jurisdiction or state           be assisted         assisted
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Jurisdictions:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City, NY\a             Spanish heritage,   Korean
                                Chinese

San Francisco City and Co., CA  Chinese             Spanish heritage

Santa Clara Co., CA             Spanish heritage    Vietnamese,
                                                    Chinese

Sandoval Co., NM                American Indian     Spanish heritage

Santa Fe Co., NM                Spanish heritage    American Indian


States:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
California                      none                Korean

Hawaii                          none                Chinese, Korean
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The New York City response provided consolidated data for Bronx,
Kings, Queens, and New York counties. 

Source:  GAO survey. 


      SOME STATES HAVE ADOPTED
      THEIR OWN BILINGUAL VOTING
      ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

Several states have enacted laws requiring some form of minority
language voting assistance during the election process.  California,
for example, requires that minority language sample ballots be posted
in polling places in which the Secretary of State determines such
assistance is needed.  Also, when a need exists, county clerks are
required to make reasonable efforts to recruit election officials
fluent in minority languages.  The state considers assistance to be
needed when 3 percent or more of voting age citizens lack sufficient
English skills to vote without assistance, or when citizens or
organizations provide information supporting a need for assistance. 

New Jersey requires that bilingual sample ballots be provided for
election districts where Spanish is the primary language for 10
percent or more of the registered voters.  Also, two additional
election district board members who are Hispanic in origin and fluent
in Spanish must be appointed in these districts. 

In Texas, the election code specifies that bilingual election
materials be provided in precincts where persons of Spanish origin or
descent comprise 5 percent or more of the population of both the
precinct and the county in which the precinct is located.  In these
covered precincts, the following materials must be presented
bilingually:  instruction cards, ballots, affidavits, other forms
that voters are required to sign, and absentee voting materials.  In
addition, the judge presiding over an election in covered precincts
must make reasonable efforts to appoint election clerks who are
fluent in both English and Spanish. 

Also some states, such as North Dakota and Colorado, have laws that
entitle non-English speaking electors to have assistance, e.g., for
preparing ballots or operating voting machines, when they request it. 


   COSTS JURISDICTIONS AND STATES
   REPORTED INCURRING TO PROVIDE
   BILINGUAL VOTING ASSISTANCE IN
   1996
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

In response to our survey questions on the cost of providing
bilingual voting assistance,\6 34 jurisdictions said they reported
all costs and 30 jurisdictions said they reported partial costs for
1996 elections.  Likewise, two states reported all and five states
reported partial bilingual voting assistance costs for 1996
elections.\7

For prior year elections, 29 jurisdictions and 6 states reported data
for costs they incurred to provide bilingual voting assistance. 
Generally, jurisdictions and states said they did not keep track of
the costs they incurred to provide the minority language portion of
their voting assistance.  Further, they are not required to identify
such costs. 


--------------------
\6 Our survey requested that respondents provide only the actual
costs to implement the federal bilingual voting assistance provisions
for which they had supporting documentation.  We asked that they not
provide cost estimates.  We did not verify the cost data they
provided. 

\7 Bilingual voting assistance costs the states reported are over and
above the costs the jurisdictions reported. 


      FEW JURISDICTIONS AND STATES
      SAID THEY IDENTIFIED COSTS
      FOR PROVIDING BILINGUAL
      VOTING ASSISTANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Covered jurisdictions and states are not required to maintain data on
their costs of providing bilingual voting assistance.  However, a
small number of jurisdictions and states reported cost information
for providing bilingual voting assistance.  About 76 percent of the
jurisdictions (see fig.  8) and 42 percent of the states that
provided bilingual voting assistance were unable to determine the
cost of doing so.  Some jurisdiction officials said that their
jurisdictions have provided bilingual assistance for so many years
that it is just a part of their total election process and they did
not bother to keep track of the bilingual assistance costs. 

   Figure 8:  Percent of
   Jurisdictions Providing
   Bilingual Cost Data for
   Elections in 1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

Most of the jurisdictions that were unable to provide cost data,
cited, as causes, the lack of specificity in (1) printers' billing
statements for election materials and (2) their accounting systems. 
In analyzing the jurisdictions' responses, we noted that 135 of the
272 jurisdictions reported they were unable to provide cost data for
providing written assistance but reported using only bilingual
workers or volunteer assistants to provide oral assistance.  Figure 9
shows the specific reasons 231 jurisdictions reported being unable to
do so. 

   Figure 9:  Reasons
   Jurisdictions Could Not Provide
   Bilingual Assistance Costs

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Some jurisdictions gave more than one reason. 

\a Other includes reasons such as being generally unable to separate
the bilingual costs from the other costs incurred. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

In addition, we contacted three printers of election materials and
ballots in Texas\8 to determine whether they could provide
information on the cost of publishing the minority language portion
of the ballot.  None of the printers contacted could provide the
costs of the minority portion of the ballot.  One printer estimated
that for 1996, the minority language portion of the ballot comprised
about 25 percent of the total cost of ballots. 


--------------------
\8 These printers printed election materials and ballots for about 80
percent of Texas' 254 counties. 


      JURISDICTIONS' REPORTED
      COSTS FOR ELECTIONS IN 1996
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Of the 272 responding jurisdictions that reported providing bilingual
voting assistance, 34 jurisdictions reported the total cost of
providing such assistance,\9 of which 6 jurisdictions said they
provided oral assistance only but at no additional cost.  In
addition, 30 jurisdictions reported partial cost data.  Table 2 shows
the total costs jurisdictions reported they incurred to provide
bilingual voting assistance under the act.\10



                                                                       Table 2
                                                       
                                                       Jurisdictions' Reported Total Costs for
                                                       Providing Bilingual Voting Assistance in
                                                                         1996

                                                 Number of
                        Types of     Number of   bilingual                          Total                                        Other          Total
                        groups         polling     polling  Types of help        election      Bilingual      Bilingual      bilingual      bilingual
Name of jurisdiction    assisted        places      places  provided                costs  written costs     oral costs          costs          costs
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  --------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  =============
Alameda Co., CA         S, C             1,034       1,034  Written/oral       $2,842,300       $213,200             \b      $23,778\c       $236,978

Colusa Co., CA          S                   17          17  Written/oral           83,500            300             \b             \d            300

Inyo Co., CA            S                   22           1  Oral                   79,372             \a           $100             \d            100

Kings Co., CA           S                   28          28  Written/oral          220,200         66,500          2,000             \d         68,500

Los Angeles Co., CA     S, C, V,         5,632       5,632  Written/oral       30,981,718        828,800        276,300             \d      1,105,100
                        J, F

Orange Co., CA          S, V             1,628       1,628  Written/oral        5,730,100        340,400         66,800             \d        407,200

San Benito Co., CA      S                   22          17  Written/oral          111,400         15,300             \b             \d         15,300

San Diego Co., CA       S                1,510       1,510  Written/oral        3,450,000         29,400          2,160             \d         31,560

San Francisco City and  C                  652         250  Written/oral        3,200,000         78,000             \b             \d         78,000
Co., CA

Santa Clara Co., CA     S                1,146       1,146  Written/oral        5,405,000        581,123         62,125             \d        643,248

New Britain, CT         S                   19           8  Written/oral           50,100            700             \b             \d            700

Bingham Co., ID         S, I                22           2  Oral                  109,000             \a          1,200             \d          1,200

Power Co.,ID            I                    7           2  Oral                   19,361             \a            200             \d            200

Springfield, MA         S                   64          64  Written/oral           47,000            500             \b             \d            500

Chelsea, MA             S                   10          10  Written/oral           48,700          1,000             \b             \d          1,000

Clyde Township, MI      S                    1           1  Written/oral            4,500            900            162             \d          1,062

Zilwaukee Township, MI  S                    1           1  Written                 1,000           \0\e             \a             \d              0

Middlesex Co., NJ       S                  247         225  Written/oral          281,058        105,200             \b             \d        105,200

Luna Co., NM            S                   13          13  Written/oral           26,000         15,000             \b             \d         15,000

New York City, NY\f     S, C             1,280         788  Written/oral       16,000,000        369,500        216,900             \d        586,400

Suffolk Co., NY         S                  350         350  Written/oral            1,800          1,000             \b             \d          1,000

Jackson Co., NC         I                   18           1  Written/oral           18,000            100            200             \d            300

Adair Co., OK           I                   18          18  Oral                    1,000             \a            100             \d            100

Central Falls, RI       S                    9           9  Written/oral           12,749            100             \b             \d            100

Dewey Co., SD           I                   14           9  Oral                   16,450             \a            138             \d            138

Todd Co., SD            I                   11           6  Oral                   17,100             \a            700             \d            700

Andrew Co., TX          S                    5           5  Written/oral            6,300          1,900            700             \d          2,600

San Juan Co., UT        I                   15           7  Oral                   68,500             \a         44,500             \d         44,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  S = Spanish heritage; C = Chinese; V = Vietnamese; J =
Japanese; F = Filipino; and I = American Indian. 

\a For jurisdictions providing oral voting assistance only, bilingual
written assistance costs are not applicable.  Likewise, for
jurisdictions providing written assistance only, bilingual oral
assistance costs are not applicable. 

\b For jurisdictions providing both written and oral assistance, but
which reported no costs for oral assistance, the oral assistance was
reportedly provided by bilingual poll/office workers at no additional
cost. 

\c Other included computer upgrades, word processing package
purchases, and additional costs for office personnel. 

\d Jurisdiction did not indicate costs in this category. 

\e Zilwaukee reported incurring no additional costs as bilingual
sample ballots and other bilingual voting materials that it posted
were paid for by the state and the county. 

\f The New York City response provided consolidated cost data for
Bronx, Kings, Queens, and New York counties. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

In addition to the above jurisdictions, table 3 provides information
on the 30 jurisdictions that were able to provide partial cost
information. 



                                                                       Table 3
                                                       
                                                        Jurisdictions' Reported Partial Costs
                                                            for Providing Bilingual Voting
                                                                  Assistance in 1996

                        Types of         Total   Bilingual                          Total                                        Other        Partial
                        groups         polling     polling  Types of help        election      Bilingual      Bilingual      bilingual      bilingual
Name of jurisdiction    assisted        places      places  provided                costs  written costs     oral costs          costs   costs totals
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  --------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Coconino Co., AZ        S, I                75          75  Written/oral         $242,600        unknown         $1,500         $275\e         $1,775

Maricopa Co., AZ        S, I               843          92  Written/oral        3,500,000         $3,400            294             \d          3,694

Pima Co., AZ            S, I               402         402  Written/oral        1,640,363        unknown            600             \d            600

Imperial Co., CA        S                   65          65  Written/oral          277,665         70,200             \c             \d         70,200

Kern Co., CA\a          S                  318         237  Written/oral          800,000         23,000             \c             \d         23,000

Monterey Co., CA        S                  169          52  Written/oral               \d         38,500             \c             \d         38,500

Riverside Co., CA       S                  961         961  Written/oral        2,700,000         22,800        unknown             \d         22,800

San Bernardino Co.,     S                  876         291  Written/oral        1,550,315         72,400          2,340             \d         74,740
CA\a

Tulare Co., CA\a        S                  168         168  Written/oral          329,900         18,591             \c             \d         18,591

Ventura Co., CA         S                  427         427  Written/oral          unknown          3,400             \c          200\e          3,600

Yuba Co., CA            S                   43          43  Written/oral          188,896         16,651             \c             \d         16,651

Saguache Co., CO        S                   10          10  Written/oral           28,000            200             \c             \d            200

Hartford Town, CT       S                   27          27  Written/oral           24,370          1,432             \c             \d          1,432

Collier Co., FL         S, I                94          94  Written/oral          540,000          2,000        unknown             \d          2,000

Dade Co., FL            S                  576         576  Written/oral        2,700,000         53,900             \c             \d         53,900

Hillsborough Co., FL    S                  314         314  Written/oral        1,080,000            700             \c             \d            700

Monroe, Co., FL         S                   33          33  Written/oral           65,000          2,662             \c             \d          2,662

Orange Co., FL          S                  218         218  Written/oral        1,348,400         12,200             \c             \d         12,200

Passaic Co., NJ         S                  279          81  Written/oral          727,100          8,349         25,000             \d         33,349

Union Co., NJ           S                  219          46  Written/oral          634,800         14,400          4,300             \d         18,700

Cibola Co., NM          S, I                30          30  Written/oral           44,844        unknown          4,960             \d          4,960

Lea Co., NM             S                   46          46  Written/oral           84,779          9,699             \c             \d          9,699

San Juan Co., NM        S, I                83          83  Written/oral          450,100        unknown         64,600        1,976\e         66,576

Taos Co., NM            S, I                40          40  Written/oral               \f        unknown            120             \d            120

Valencia Co., NM        S                   36          36  Written/oral          120,500          2,000            500        6,500\e          9,000

Philadelphia Co., PA    S                1,681       1,681  Written/oral               \f        unknown          3,100             \d          3,100

Lamb Co., TX            S                   12          11  Written/oral          5,900\b        unknown            700             \d            700

Parmer Co., TX          S                   10           9  Written/oral          5,500\b        unknown            600             \d            600

Collin Co., TX          S                  119         119  Written/oral        230,000\b          4,000             \c             \d          4,000

Jones Co., TX           S                   15           5  Written/oral        \10,983\b        unknown            300             \d            300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  S = Spanish heritage and I = American Indian. 

\a Total election costs for Kern County, San Bernardino County, and
Tulare County, CA, were only for the primary election.  Bilingual
assistance costs for San Bernardino County were only for the primary
election.  Bilingual assistance costs for Kern County and Tulare
County were for both the primary and general elections. 

\b In Texas, the political parties paid the costs of the primary
elections, while the jurisdictions paid the costs for the general
election. 

\c For jurisdictions providing both written and oral assistance, but
which reported no costs for oral assistance, the oral assistance was
reportedly provided by bilingual poll/office workers or volunteers at
no additional cost.  For jurisdictions providing written assistance
only, no oral assistance was provided. 

\d Jurisdiction did not indicate costs in this category. 

\e Other bilingual costs included:  Coconino County, AZ, incurred
mileage costs; Ventura County, CA, replaced signs, instructions, and
forms; San Juan County, NM, produced video and audio tapes and
purchased bulletin boards; and Valencia County, NM, purchased
audio/visual equipment for pollworker training. 

\f Jurisdiction did not complete this question. 

Source:  GAO survey. 


--------------------
\9 In reporting cost information, we requested that respondents
include primary elections and, where applicable, the early voting
period of the general election as part of the total costs for
carrying out the elections.  Because the data were not reported
separately, costs of assistance for jurisdictions with primary
elections or early voting cannot be distinguished from costs for
jurisdictions that did not have such elections. 

\10 The six jurisdictions that reported providing oral bilingual
assistance at no additional cost were Jones County, MS; Newton
County, MS; Humbolt County, NV; Harding County, NM; Benson County,
ND; and Shannon County, SD. 


      STATES' REPORTED COSTS FOR
      ELECTIONS IN 1996
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Of the 12 state respondents that reported providing bilingual voting
assistance, Florida and Hawaii reported total bilingual voting
assistance costs for the 1996 elections.  Arizona, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Mexico, and Rhode Island provided partial cost data. 
Table 4 presents the cost data reported by the seven states for the
1996 elections. 



                                     Table 4
                     
                       States' Reported Costs for Providing
                       Bilingual Voting Assistance in 1996

                             Bilingual                       Other         Total
            Type of help       written     Bilingual     bilingual     bilingual
State       provided             costs    oral costs         costs         costs
----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ============
Total costs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii      Written/           $22,648          $680            \a       $23,328
             oral
Florida     Written              7,900            \b            \a         7,900

Partial costs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona     Written/             3,970            \a            \a         3,970
             oral
Massachuse  Written/             3,437           0\c            \a         3,437
 tts         oral
Michigan    Written              3,930            \b            \a         3,930
New Mexico  Written/           unknown         9,400     $60,900\d        70,300
             oral
Rhode       Written              8,000            \b            \a         8,000
 Island
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a States did not report costs in these categories. 

\b States provided written assistance only; bilingual oral assistance
costs were not applicable. 

\c Massachusetts reported providing oral assistance at no additional
cost by having state employees available that spoke the minority
language. 

\d New Mexico provided grants to jurisdictions to provide bilingual
voting assistance. 

Source:  GAO survey. 


      STATES' AND JURISDICTIONS'
      REPORTED COSTS FOR PRIOR
      ELECTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

For prior election years 1992 to 1995, 29 jurisdictions and 6 states
provided cost data.  However, the cost data provided may not
represent all bilingual costs. 

The bilingual assistance costs jurisdictions reported for prior
years' elections varied widely.  For example, Central Falls City, RI,
reported costs of $83 for 1992, $164 for 1993, $175 for 1994, but $0
for 1995.  Los Angeles County, CA, reported costs of $451,800 for
1993, $764,900 for 1994, and $292,400 for 1995.  Table 5 shows the
prior year election costs reported by the jurisdictions. 



                                Table 5
                
                  Reported Costs to Provide Bilingual
                   Voting Assistance by Jurisdiction,
                        Election Years 1992-1995

                            Bilingual  Bilingual  Bilingual  Bilingual
                                costs      costs      costs      costs
Name of jurisdiction             1992       1993       1994       1995
--------------------------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
Alameda Co., CA               $67,300    $48,200   $191,800    $33,563
Colusa Co., CA                    300         \a        300         \a
Imperial Co., CA                   \a         \a     47,800     16,700
Inyo Co., CA                       \a         45         90         \a
Kern Co., CA                   51,000         \a     30,000         \a
Los Angeles Co., CA                \a    451,800    764,900    292,400
Orange Co., CA                160,084         \a    381,138         \a
Riverside Co., CA              11,452      7,659     22,008     22,972
San Benito Co., CA             12,562         \a     10,175        418
San Diego Co., CA              19,299     25,557     45,000     28,800
San Francisco City and         34,552     45,865     43,571     35,632
 Co., CA
Santa Clara Co., CA                \a         \a    352,447         \a
Tulare Co., CA                 38,100      9,900     19,400     11,000
Ventura Co., CA                   600        100     14,200         \a
Yuba Co., CA                       \a         \a     28,793         \a
Saguache Co., CO                   \a         \a        110         \a
Windham Co., CT                    \a         \a         \a      1,700
Orange Co., FL                  7,344         \a      5,400         \a
Bingham Co., ID                   500         \a        500         \a
Power Co., ID                      \a         \a        200         \a
Clyde Township, MI                422        106        500         \a
Union Co., NJ                      \a     36,900     32,000     24,500
New York City, NY\b           127,060    309,620    450,624    264,226
Jackson Co., NC                   325         \a        332         \a
Lea Co., NM                    13,872         \a     12,195         \a
Adair Co., OK                     117         \a        117         \a
Central Falls City, RI             83        164        175          0
Dewey Co., SD                     452         \a        406         \a
San Juan Co., UT                   \a         \a     49,700         \a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Jurisdictions did not report costs in these years because, for
example, they were unable to determine those costs or no elections
were held. 

\b The New York City response provided consolidated cost data for
Bronx, Kings, Queens, and New York counties. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

Similarly, the costs reported by the six states for prior election
years varied.  For example, for 1994, Hawaii reported costs of $610,
while New Mexico reported costs of more than $70,000.  Four of the
states reported they did not incur any election costs in odd-numbered
years, but other states did not provide cost information for a year. 
Table 6 shows the prior year election costs reported by the states. 



                                Table 6
                
                  States' Reported Prior Year Election
                            Costs, 1992-1995

                            Bilingual  Bilingual  Bilingual  Bilingual
                                costs      costs      costs      costs
State                            1992       1993       1994       1995
--------------------------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
Arizona                            \a         \a    $10,000         \a
Hawaii                         $1,872         \a        610         \a
Massachusetts                   3,000         \a      6,000         \a
Michigan                        1,590       $806      8,901         \a
New Mexico                         \a         \a     70,300         \a
Texas                         146,524    247,295      1,520   $248,281
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a States did not incur or did not provide costs for these years. 

Source:  GAO survey. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

We are providing copies of this report to the Chairmen of the House
and Senate Committees on the Judiciary and their respective Ranking
Minority Members.  We will also make copies available to others on
request. 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.  If you
have any questions about this report, please call me on (202)
512-8777. 

Sincerely yours,

Norman J.  Rabkin
Director, Administration of
 Justice Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

Our objectives were to determine (1) what types of bilingual voting
assistance states and covered jurisdictions provided during the 1996
general election to implement the bilingual voting assistance
provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended; and (2) the
actual costs states and covered jurisdictions incurred in 1996 to
provide bilingual voting assistance and materials, as well as the
actual costs they incurred in prior elections.  Regarding cost
information, we agreed to collect election costs, not voter
registration costs, and only obtain the actual bilingual costs of the
states and covered jurisdictions (not estimates). 

We began our review by carrying out a search of the legal and social
science literature on bilingual voting assistance.  We reviewed the
studies identified through the search, as well as relevant newspaper
articles and reports by the Congressional Research Service.  We also
reviewed our 1986 report on the costs and use of bilingual voting
assistance during the 1984 general election.\1 We contacted
Department of Justice and Bureau of Census officials to identify
jurisdictions covered by the act. 

To address both our objectives, we sought descriptive data and other
information about all 422 covered jurisdictions and the 28 states in
which the jurisdictions were located, through mail-out
questionnaires.  We developed one questionnaire to request
information from the covered jurisdictions and a second questionnaire
to solicit information from the states in which the covered
jurisdictions were located.  We sent a questionnaire to election
officials representing 391\2 covered jurisdictions and the 28 states. 

With respect to the first objective, we requested, from each covered
jurisdiction and state, information on the types of written and oral
bilingual voting assistance provided.  In addition, we asked the
states and jurisdictions to provide samples of the written materials
and information provided to minority language voters. 

Regarding the second objective, we asked the covered jurisdictions
and states to provide actual cost information for the 1996 general
election, including early voting and absentee voting costs, and for
the primary elections.  We also asked the jurisdictions and states to
provide actual data for other costs that were the result of providing
bilingual voting assistance, e.g., for special equipment such as
enhanced voting machines.  We solicited information on the actual
costs incurred by the jurisdictions and states to provide written and
oral assistance costs as well as other related costs for elections
between 1992 and 1995.  If, however, a state or jurisdiction could
not provide actual cost data, we asked that it not provide estimated
costs. 

Further, we used the questionnaires to collect information on
bilingual voting assistance laws in the 28 states.  Specifically, we
asked the states and jurisdictions to provide information on any
state or local bilingual voting assistance requirements. 

To develop the questionnaires, we spoke with officials in the Voting
Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice.  In addition, we contacted state elections officials in the
28 states where the 422 jurisdictions were located to (1) obtain the
names and addresses of the appropriate election officials in the
covered jurisdictions and (2) ascertain what information might be
available on the bilingual voting assistance materials provided and
the costs of providing such materials.  We pretested the
questionnaires, by telephone, with election officials from
judgmentally selected states and covered jurisdictions.  Through
these pretests, we received input from states and jurisdictions in
different geographic regions.  We revised the questionnaires on the
basis of this input. 

On November 15, 1996, we mailed the questionnaires.  We followed up
with a second mailing to those jurisdictions that had not responded
by December 23, 1996.  In mid-January 1997, we followed up with phone
calls to election officials in those jurisdictions and states that
had not responded. 

In all, we received information about 323 of the 422 covered
jurisdictions and 26 of the 28 states.  Specifically, we received
fully or partially completed responses from 292 (75 percent) of the
391 covered jurisdictions sent questionnaires.  Alaska and Hawaii
provided information for the 28 jurisdictions in their states.  The
New York City Board of Election provided responses for four covered
jurisdictions--Bronx, Kings, Queens, and New York Counties. 

To the extent practical, we attempted to verify the completeness and
accuracy of the responses.  We conducted edit checks of key responses
for completeness.  When necessary, we contacted respondents to obtain
responses to incomplete answers and to resolve any apparent
inconsistencies between answers to different questions.  For Los
Angeles County, we contacted an election official to determine the
source of Los Angeles' reported bilingual assistance cost
information.  As a consistency check, where possible, we compared
questionnaire responses on the assistance provided with the samples
of written election materials the respondents provided us.  Of the
258 respondents reporting that they provided written bilingual voting
assistance, 155 or 60 percent sent us samples of the bilingual
materials they provided. 

In addition, a number of jurisdictions provided us documentation
supporting their costs.  Ten jurisdictions provided copies of
invoices they received to support, in total or in part, the bilingual
costs they reported and seven jurisdictions provided, in their
questionnaire responses, itemized cost breakdowns to support the
costs they reported.  For example, Pima County, AZ, provided copies
of invoices supporting the $600 in costs it reported; Monterey
County, CA, provided invoices totaling $17,511.68 it received for,
among other things, translations of candidate statements and ballot
measures; and San Bernardino County, CA, showed on its response,
among other things, calculations to support $2,340 it paid in pay
adjustments to its bilingual staff.  A Los Angeles County official
told us that their reported costs were prepared by their budget and
accounting section, which tracks the cost information, and were based
on hard copy evidence.  Moreover, she said that the county has to
follow accounting rules and regulations specified by the county
auditor.  Furthermore, we extended our reporting deadline, because we
had asked for actual costs and some jurisdictions, such as New York
City and San Francisco, had not received all of their invoices in
time to meet our originally requested date.  The supporting
documentation the jurisdictions provided was not inconsistent with
the bilingual costs they reported.  Because the jurisdictions that
reported costs were geographically dispersed, it was not practical to
fully verify the costs reported. 

For both objectives, however, the questionnaire findings were
affected by a variety of limitations in the information and data
available.  The covered jurisdictions varied in the number of polling
places where bilingual assistance was provided, the size of the
populations in need of bilingual assistance, and the number of
minority groups provided bilingual assistance within the
jurisdiction.  Accordingly, comparisons across jurisdictions are not
meaningful and findings should not be projected to nonrespondents. 

Further, the response rate varied across minority language groups. 
We received information about 262 (74 percent) of the 352
jurisdictions required to provide assistance to Spanish heritage
groups.  Figure I.1 illustrates the location and number of these
jurisdictions. 

   Figure I.1:  Location and
   Number of Spanish Heritage
   Covered Jurisdictions

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of Department of Justice and Bureau of Census
data. 

We received information about all 10 jurisdictions required to
provide assistance to Asian Americans.  Figure I.2 illustrates the
location and number of these jurisdictions. 

   Figure I.2:  Location and
   Number of Asian American
   Covered Jurisdictions

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of Department of Justice and Bureau of Census
data. 

We received information representing 51\3 (77 percent) of the 66
jurisdictions required to provide assistance to American Indians. 
The state of Alaska provided statewide information on assistance
provided to Alaskan Natives (25 jurisdictions).  Figure I.3
illustrates the location and number of the American Indian and
Alaskan Native covered jurisdictions. 

   Figure I.3:  Location and
   Number of American Indian and
   Alaskan Native Covered
   Jurisdictions

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Of the 25 Alaskan jurisdictions, 6 provided assistance to both
Alaskan Natives and American Indians. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Department of Justice and Bureau of Census
data. 

Thus, we can report responses representing all Alaskan Native and all
Asian American jurisdictions.  We can report responses representing
77 percent of the American Indian jurisdictions.  Of the 90 Spanish
heritage jurisdictions (26 percent) not reporting, most were in
Texas.  Since even within a language group, the jurisdictions are
very different, comparisons across jurisdictions or projections of
findings to the nonrespondents within a particular language group
should not be made. 

We received information from jurisdictions in all 28 states.  The
respondents included urban and rural jurisdictions.  We did not,
however, receive information from the major metropolitan areas of
Suffolk County, MA--Boston--and Harris County, TX--Houston.  We did
not receive information from the states of Colorado and Nevada. 

In addition, 20 of the jurisdictions responding reported providing no
bilingual voting assistance.  Seventeen of these jurisdictions were
to provide assistance to American Indians; they comprised one fourth
of the 66 jurisdictions required to provide assistance to American
Indians.  Three of the 20 jurisdictions were to provide assistance to
Spanish heritage groups.  Since the 20 jurisdictions were not
randomly distributed among the respondents but were primarily
American Indian jurisdictions, there may be something unique about
these jurisdictions, e.g., the size of the minority language
population or the oral language tradition, that could explain the
responses.  Further, since the responses were self-reported,
reflecting the interpretation of the respondent, conclusions
regarding compliance cannot be drawn without further inquiry. 

In addition, differences in the calculation and reporting of election
costs precluded comparisons among the jurisdictions and states that
could provide election cost and/or bilingual cost data.  For example,
for Texas jurisdictions' total election costs did not include the
costs of primary elections because the political parties paid the
primary costs, while across California the jurisdictions incurred
both primary and election costs.  Because of the differences in
election and bilingual assistance costs across the states and
jurisdictions, we did not attempt to compare the percentage of
bilingual costs to total costs across jurisdictions, calculate any
summary costs, or use these data to project the costs of
nonrespondents.  We only reported the cost figures as provided by the
jurisdictions and states that could provide us with actual cost data. 
We did not verify independently the cost data provided. 

Further, in an effort to obtain cost information in addition to that
provided by the questionnaire respondents, we contacted three
printers in Texas.  We focused on Texas because it had the largest
number of covered jurisdictions (254) of any state and these
jurisdictions comprised over half of the total of covered
jurisdictions nationwide.  Since few Texas jurisdictions could
provide any cost data and most Texas jurisdictions used these
printers, we contacted them to ask whether they could provide cost
information. 

On April 9, 1997, we requested comments from the Attorney General or
her designee on a draft of this report.  On April 18, 1997, the Chief
of the Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, on behalf of the
Attorney General, provided technical information, which we
incorporated where appropriate.  We did our work between July 1996
and April 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 Bilingual Voting Assistance:  Costs of and Use During the November
1984 General Election (GAO/GGD-86-134BR, Sept.  1986). 

\2 For the 25 covered jurisdictions in Alaska (as determined by the
1990 Census) and the 3 covered jurisdictions in Hawaii, state
election officials requested that they be permitted to respond for
the jurisdictions; in both Alaska and Hawaii, the state and not the
local jurisdictions is responsible for election administration. 
Their responses are contained in discussions of state assistance.  In
addition, New York City Board of Election officials agreed to provide
responses for four covered jurisdictions--Bronx, Kings, Queens, and
New York Counties.  Their response is included in the discussions on
jurisdiction assistance.  Thus, in total, 422 covered jurisdictions
were represented by the jurisdictions to which we mailed surveys. 

\3 We received statewide information from Alaska where there are six
jurisdictions with American Indian populations. 


LISTING OF STATES AND COVERED
JURISDICTIONS THAT RESPONDED TO
GAO'S SURVEY
========================================================== Appendix II

The following table shows the states and covered jurisdictions that
responded to GAO's survey and the related ethnic and minority
language groups to whom bilingual voting assistance applied. 



                                    Table II.1
                     
                      States and Covered Jurisdictions that
                        Responded to GAO's Survey and the
                     Applicable Ethnic and Minority Language
                                      Groups

                                                   Ethnic groups (minority
State                Covered jurisdiction          language group)
-------------------  ----------------------------  -----------------------------
Alaska\a                                           Alaskan Natives (Eskimo,
                                                   Aleut); American Indian
                                                   (Athapascan, Tanaina,
                                                   Tlinglit, Kuchin)

Arizona              Coconino County               American Indian (Havasupai,
                                                   Hopi, Navajo); Spanish
                                                   heritage

                     Gila County                   American Indian (Apache);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Graham County                 American Indian (Apache);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Greenlee County               Spanish heritage

                     La Paz County                 Spanish heritage

                     Maricopa County               American Indian (Pima,
                                                   Yavapai); Spanish heritage

                     Mohave County                 Spanish heritage

                     Pima County                   American Indian (Pima);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Pinal County                  American Indian (Apache,
                                                   Pima); Spanish heritage

California           Alameda County                Asian American (Chinese);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Colusa County                 American Indian (Wintun)

                     Fresno County                 Spanish heritage

                     Imperial County               Spanish heritage

                     Inyo County                   American Indian (Spanish)

                     Kern County                   Spanish heritage

                     Kings County                  Spanish heritage

                     Lake County                   American Indian (Spanish)

                     Los Angeles County            Asian American (Chinese,
                                                   Filipino, Japanese,
                                                   Vietnamese); Spanish heritage

                     Merced County                 Spanish heritage

                     Monterey County               Spanish heritage

                     Orange County                 Asian American (Vietnamese);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Riverside County              Spanish heritage

                     San Benito County             Spanish heritage

                     San Bernardino County         Spanish heritage

                     San Diego County              Spanish heritage

                     San Francisco County          Asian American (Chinese)

                     Santa Clara County            Spanish heritage

                     Tulare County                 Spanish heritage

                     Ventura County                Spanish heritage

                     Yuba County                   Spanish heritage

Colorado\b           Alamosa County                Spanish heritage

                     Archuleta County              Spanish heritage

                     Bent County                   Spanish heritage

                     Conejos County                Spanish heritage

                     La Plata County               American Indian (Ute)

                     Las Animas County             Spanish heritage

                     Montezuma County              American Indian (Ute)

                     Otero County                  Spanish heritage

                     Rio Grande County             Spanish heritage

                     Saguache County               Spanish heritage

Connecticut          Bridgeport Town (Fairfield    Spanish heritage
                     County)

                     Hartford Town (Hartford       Spanish heritage
                     County)

                     New Britain Town (Hartford    Spanish heritage
                     County)

                     Windham Town (Windham         Spanish heritage
                     County)

Florida              Broward County                American Indian (Mikasuki,
                                                   Muskogee); Spanish heritage

                     Collier County                American Indian (Mikasuki)

                     Dade County                   American Indian (Mikasuki);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Hardee County                 Spanish heritage

                     Hendry County                 American Indian (Mikasuki,
                                                   Muskogee)

                     Hillsborough County           Spanish heritage

                     Monroe County                 Spanish heritage

                     Orange County                 Spanish heritage

Hawaii\a                                           Asian American (Filipino,
                                                   Japanese)

Idaho                Bingham County                American Indian (Shoshoni)

                     Owyhee County                 American Indian (Shoshoni)

                     Power County                  American Indian (Shoshoni)

Illinois             Cook County                   Spanish heritage

Iowa                 Tama County                   American Indian (Fox)

Louisiana            Avoyelles Parish              American Indian (French)

Massachusetts        Chelsea City (Suffolk         Spanish heritage
                     County)

                     Holyoke City (Hampden         Spanish heritage
                     County)

                     Springfield City (Hampden     Spanish heritage
                     County)

Michigan             Clyde Township (Allegan       Spanish heritage
                     County)

                     Zilwaukee Township (Saginaw   Spanish heritage
                     County)

Mississippi          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)

Nevada\b             Elko County                   American Indian (Shoshoni)

                     Humboldt County               American Indian (Paiute)

New Jersey           Essex County                  Spanish heritage

                     Middlesex County              Spanish heritage

                     Passaic County                Spanish heritage

                     Union County                  Spanish heritage

New Mexico           Chaves County                 Spanish heritage

                     Cibola County                 American Indian (Keres,
                                                   Navajo, Zuni); Spanish
                                                   heritage

                     Colfax County                 Spanish heritage

                     Dona Ana County               Spanish heritage

                     Eddy County                   Spanish heritage

                     Grant County                  Spanish heritage

                     Guadalupe County              Spanish heritage

                     Harding County                Spanish heritage

                     Hidalgo County                Spanish heritage

                     Lea County                    Spanish heritage

                     Luna County                   Spanish heritage

                     McKinley County               American Indian (Navajo,
                                                   Zuni)

                     Mora County                   Spanish heritage

                     Quay County                   Spanish heritage

                     Roosevelt County              Spanish heritage

                     San Juan County               American Indian (Navajo)

                     Sandoval County               American Indian (Jicarilla,
                                                   Keres, Navajo, Towa)

                     Santa Fe County               Spanish heritage

                     Socorro County                American Indian (Navajo);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Taos County                   American Indian (Tiwa);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Torrance County               Spanish heritage

                     Union County                  Spanish heritage

                     Valencia County               American Indian (Keres,
                                                   Tiwa); Spanish heritage

New York             Franklin County               American Indian (Mohawk)

                     New York City\c               Asian American (Chinese),
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Suffolk County                Spanish heritage

North Carolina       Jackson County                American Indian

North Dakota         Benson County                 American Indian (Dakota)

                     Eddy County                   American Indian (Dakota)

                     Ramsey County                 American Indian (Dakota)

Oklahoma             Adair County                  American Indian (Cherokee)

Oregon               Malheur County                American Indian (Paiute)

Pennsylvania         Philadelphia County           Spanish heritage

Rhode Island         Central Falls City            Spanish heritage
                     (Providence County)

South Dakota         Dewey County                  American Indian (Dakota)

                     Gregory County                American Indian (Dakota)

                     Lyman County                  American Indian (Dakota)

                     Mellette County               American Indian (Dakota)

                     Shannon County                American Indian

                     Todd County                   American Indian (Dakota)

                     Tripp County                  American Indian (Dakota)

                     Ziebach County                American Indian (Dakota)

Texas                Andrews County                Spanish heritage

                     Aransas County                Spanish heritage

                     Archer County                 Spanish heritage

                     Atascosa County               Spanish heritage

                     Bailey County                 Spanish heritage

                     Bastrop County                Spanish heritage

                     Baylor County                 Spanish heritage

                     Bee County                    Spanish heritage

                     Bowie County                  Spanish heritage

                     Brazoria County               Spanish heritage

                     Burnet County                 Spanish heritage

                     Caldwell County               Spanish heritage

                     Calhoun County                Spanish heritage

                     Callahan County               Spanish heritage

                     Cameron County                Spanish heritage

                     Camp County                   Spanish heritage

                     Carson County                 Spanish heritage

                     Castro County                 Spanish heritage

                     Childress County              Spanish heritage

                     Cochran County                Spanish heritage

                     Coke County                   Spanish heritage

                     Collin County                 Spanish heritage

                     Concho County                 Spanish heritage

                     Cooke County                  Spanish heritage

                     Comal County                  Spanish heritage

                     Coryell County                Spanish heritage

                     Crane County                  Spanish heritage

                     Crockett County               Spanish heritage

                     Crosby County                 Spanish heritage

                     Culberson County              Spanish heritage

                     Dallam County                 Spanish heritage

                     Dallas County                 Spanish heritage

                     Dawson County                 Spanish heritage

                     Deaf Smith County             Spanish heritage

                     Denton County                 Spanish heritage

                     Dewitt County                 Spanish heritage

                     Dickens County                Spanish heritage

                     Dimmit County                 Spanish heritage

                     Donley County                 Spanish heritage

                     Duval County                  Spanish heritage

                     Eastland County               Spanish heritage

                     Ector County                  Spanish heritage

                     Edwards County                Spanish heritage

                     El Paso County                American Indian (Spanish);
                                                   Spanish heritage

                     Ellis County                  Spanish heritage

                     Erath County                  Spanish heritage

                     Falls County                  Spanish heritage

                     Fannin County                 Spanish heritage

                     Fayette County                Spanish heritage

                     Fisher County                 Spanish heritage

                     Floyd County                  Spanish heritage

                     Foard County                  Spanish heritage

                     Fort Bend County              Spanish heritage

                     Franklin County               Spanish heritage

                     Freestone County              Spanish heritage

                     Frio County                   Spanish heritage

                     Gaines County                 Spanish heritage

                     Garza County                  Spanish heritage

                     Gillespie County              Spanish heritage

                     Glasscock County              Spanish heritage

                     Goliad County                 Spanish heritage

                     Gonzales County               Spanish heritage

                     Gray County                   Spanish heritage

                     Grayson County                Spanish heritage

                     Gregg County                  Spanish heritage

                     Grimes County                 Spanish heritage

                     Guadalupe County              Spanish heritage

                     Hall County                   Spanish heritage

                     Hardeman County               Spanish heritage

                     Hardin County                 Spanish heritage

                     Hartley County                Spanish heritage

                     Hays County                   Spanish heritage

                     Hemphill County               Spanish heritage

                     Henderson County              Spanish heritage

                     Hidalgo County                Spanish heritage

                     Hockley County                Spanish heritage

                     Hood County                   Spanish heritage

                     Hopkins County                Spanish heritage

                     Howard County                 Spanish heritage

                     Hudspeth County               Spanish heritage

                     Hunt County                   Spanish heritage

                     Irion County                  Spanish heritage

                     Jack County                   Spanish heritage

                     Jackson County                Spanish heritage

                     Jeff Davis County             Spanish heritage

                     Jefferson County              Spanish heritage

                     Jim Hogg County               Spanish heritage

                     Jim Wells County              Spanish heritage

                     Jones County                  Spanish heritage

                     Karnes County                 Spanish heritage

                     Kaufman County                Spanish heritage

                     Kenedy County                 Spanish heritage

                     Kent County                   Spanish heritage

                     Kerr County                   Spanish heritage

                     Kimble County                 Spanish heritage

                     Kinney County                 Spanish heritage

                     Kleberg County                Spanish heritage

                     La Salle County               Spanish heritage

                     Lamb County                   Spanish heritage

                     Lavaca County                 Spanish heritage

                     Lee County                    Spanish heritage

                     Leon County                   Spanish heritage

                     Limestone County              Spanish heritage

                     Lipscomb County               Spanish heritage

                     Live Oak County               Spanish heritage

                     Llano County                  Spanish heritage

                     Lubbock County                Spanish heritage

                     Lynn County                   Spanish heritage

                     Madison County                Spanish heritage

                     Martin County                 Spanish heritage

                     Mason County                  Spanish heritage

                     McLennan County               Spanish heritage

                     McMullen County               Spanish heritage

                     Medina County                 Spanish heritage

                     Menard County                 Spanish heritage

                     Midland County                Spanish heritage

                     Milam County                  Spanish heritage

                     Mitchell County               Spanish heritage

                     Montague County               Spanish heritage

                     Moore County                  Spanish heritage

                     Newton County                 Spanish heritage

                     Nolan County                  Spanish heritage

                     Oldham County                 Spanish heritage

                     Orange County                 Spanish heritage

                     Palo Pinto County             Spanish heritage

                     Panola County                 Spanish heritage

                     Parmer County                 Spanish heritage

                     Pecos County                  Spanish heritage

                     Polk County                   American Indian (Alabama)

                     Potter County                 Spanish heritage

                     Presidio County               Spanish heritage

                     Reagan County                 Spanish heritage

                     Real County                   Spanish heritage

                     Red River County              Spanish heritage

                     Refugio County                Spanish heritage

                     Roberts County                Spanish heritage

                     Robertson County              Spanish heritage

                     Runnels County                Spanish heritage

                     Rusk County                   Spanish heritage

                     San Augustine County          Spanish heritage

                     San Saba County               Spanish heritage

                     Schleicher County             Spanish heritage

                     Scurry County                 Spanish heritage

                     Shelby County                 Spanish heritage

                     Smith County                  Spanish heritage

                     Starr County                  Spanish heritage

                     Sutton County                 Spanish heritage

                     Swisher County                Spanish heritage

                     Tarrant County                Spanish heritage

                     Taylor County                 Spanish heritage

                     Terrell County                Spanish heritage

                     Terry County                  Spanish heritage

                     Throckmorton County           Spanish heritage

                     Titus County                  Spanish heritage

                     Tom Green County              Spanish heritage

                     Travis County                 Spanish heritage

                     Upton County                  Spanish heritage

                     Uvalde County                 Spanish heritage

                     Val Verde County              Spanish heritage

                     Van Zandt County              Spanish heritage

                     Victoria County               Spanish heritage

                     Ward County                   Spanish heritage

                     Washington County             Spanish heritage

                     Webb County                   Spanish heritage

                     Wharton County                Spanish heritage

                     Wichita County                Spanish heritage

                     Wilbarger County              Spanish heritage

                     Willacy County                Spanish heritage

                     Wilson County                 Spanish heritage

                     Winkler County                Spanish heritage

                     Wood County                   Spanish heritage

                     Yoakum County                 Spanish heritage

                     Zapata County                 Spanish heritage

                     Zavala County                 Spanish heritage

Utah                 San Juan County               American Indian (Navajo, Ute)

Wisconsin            Curtiss Village (Clark        Spanish heritage
                     County)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Alaska and Hawaii provided consolidated responses for all state
jurisdictions. 

\b State did not respond to GAO's survey. 

\c The New York City response provided consolidated responses for
Bronx, Kings, Queens, and New York counties. 

Source:  GAO survey and Appendix to Part 55, Code of Federal
Regulations (28 CFR Ch.1). 


COVERAGE CRITERIA FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT PROVISIONS REGARDING
LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUPS
========================================================= Appendix III

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, contains two sections--4
(f)(4) and 203(c)--which provide criteria for determining which
states and jurisdictions are to be covered by its minority language
provisions.  The following material was excerpted from the Code of
Federal Regulations (28 CFR Ch.1), which describes the coverage
criteria. 

ï¿½55.5 COVERAGE UNDER SECTION
4(F)(4). 

(a) Coverage formula.  Section 4(f)(4) applies to any State or
political subdivision in which

 (1) Over five percent of the voting age citizens were, on November
1,
 1972, members of a single language minority group,

 (2) Registration and election materials were provided only in
English
 on November 1, 1972, and

 (3) Fewer than 50 percent of the voting-age citizens were registered
to
 vote or voted in the 1972 Presidential election. 

All three conditions must be satisfied before coverage exists under
section 4(f)(4).\1

(b) Coverage may be determined with regard to section 4(f)(4) on a
statewide or political subdivision basis. 

 (1) Whenever the determination is made that the bilingual
requirements
 of section 4(f)(4) are applicable to an entire State, these
requirements
 apply to each of the State's political subdivisions as well as to
the
 State.  In other words, each political subdivision within a covered
 State is subject to the same requirements as the State. 

 (2) Where an entire State is not covered under section 4(f)(4),
 individual political subdivisions may be covered. 

ï¿½55.6 COVERAGE UNDER SECTION
203(C). 

(a) Coverage formula.  There are four ways in which a political
subdivision can become subject to section 203(c).\2

 (1) Political subdivision approach.  A political subdivision is
covered if-

 (i) More than 5 percent of its voting age citizens are members of a
 single language minority group and are limited-English proficient;
and

 (ii) The illiteracy rate of such language minority citizens in
 the political subdivision is higher than the national illiteracy
rate. 

 (2) State approach.  A political subdivision is covered if-

 (i) It is located in a state in which more than 5 percent of the
voting
 age citizens are members of a single language minority and are
 limited-English proficient;

 (ii) The illiteracy rate of such language minority citizens in the
state is
 higher than the national illiteracy rate; and

 (iii) Five percent or more of the voting age citizens of the
political
 subdivision are members of such language minority group and are
 limited-English proficient. 

 (3) Numerical approach.  A political subdivision is covered if-

 (i) More than 10,000 of its voting age citizens are members of a
single
 language minority group and are limited-English proficient; and

 (ii) The illiteracy rate of such language minority citizens in the
 political subdivision is higher than the national illiteracy rate. 

 (4) Indian reservation approach.  A political subdivision is covered
if
 there is located within its borders all or any part of an Indian
 reservation-

 (i) In which more than 5 percent of the voting age American Indian
or
 Alaska Native citizens are members of a single language minority
 group and are limited-English proficient; and

 (ii) The illiteracy rate of such language minority citizens is
higher than
 the national illiteracy rate. 

(b) Definitions.  For the purpose of determinations of coverage under
section 203(c), "limited-English proficient" means unable to speak or
understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral
process; "Indian reservation" means any area that is an American
Indian or Alaska Native area, as defined by the Census Bureau for the
purposes of the 1990 decennial census; and "illiteracy" means the
failure to complete the fifth primary grade. 

(c) Determinations.  Determinations of coverage under section 203(c)
are made with regard to specific language groups of the language
minorities listed in section 203(e). 


--------------------
\1 Coverage is based on sections 4(b) (third sentence), 4(c), and
4(f)(3). 

\2 The criteria for coverage are contained in section 203(b). 


EXAMPLES OF BILINGUAL VOTING
WRITTEN ASSISTANCE MATERIALS
========================================================== Appendix IV

The following are excerpted examples of bilingual voting materials
provided by covered jurisdictions. 

   Figure IV.1:  Bilingual Ballot
   - Comal County, TX

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure IV.2:  Bilingual
   Instructions - Los Angeles
   County, CA

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Laurie E.  Ekstrand, Associate Director
James M.  Blume, Project Director
Robert P.  Glick, Project Manager
Barbara A.  Stolz, Senior Evaluator
Amy E.  Lyon, Senior Evaluator
David P.  Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Stuart M.  Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst
Jim Fields, Senior Social Science Analyst
Katherine M.  Wheeler, Publishing Advisor
Michelle D.  Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***