Bilingual Voting Assistance
Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance Gao ID: GAO-08-182 January 18, 2008The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, contains, among other things, provisions designed to protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the English language may be limited. The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces these provisions, and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) serves as a national clearinghouse for election information and procedures. The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 mandated that GAO study the implementation of bilingual voting under Section 203 of the act. This report discusses (1) the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance as of the November 2006 general election and any subsequent elections through June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly faced in providing such assistance; and (2) the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance, and the extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of such assistance to language minority voters. To obtain details about this voting assistance, GAO obtained information from election officials in 14 of the 296 jurisdictions required to provide it, as well as from community representatives in 11 of these jurisdictions. These jurisdictions were selected to reflect a range of characteristics such as geographic diversity and varying language minority groups.
All but 1 of the 14 election jurisdictions GAO contacted reported providing some form of oral or written bilingual voting assistance through such things as the use of bilingual poll workers, and each of the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in providing assistance. Election offices reported providing similar types of oral and written bilingual voting assistance at each stage of the voting process--from voter registration to Election Day--for the November 2006 and subsequent elections. In nine of the jurisdictions, this bilingual assistance was supplemented by efforts of community-based organizations. In part because DOJ guidance intentionally provides jurisdictions flexibility in how they implement bilingual voting requirements, election offices used varied strategies to implement bilingual programs. Election officials in each of the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in implementing bilingual assistance programs, including difficulty in recruiting bilingual poll workers and effectively targeting where to provide bilingual voting assistance. Officials in nine jurisdictions also noted they would benefit from additional guidance for providing bilingual assistance. The EAC has taken steps to provide additional guidance to jurisdictions, including plans to develop a set of management guidelines for jurisdictions to use in implementing their programs. GAO identified little quantitative data measuring the usefulness of various types of bilingual voting assistance. Election officials and community-based organization representatives noted that certain forms of assistance, such as having bilingual poll workers, were more useful than others. Some jurisdictions stated that modifications, including outreach to language minority groups, would improve the usefulness of bilingual assistance. While none of the 14 jurisdictions had attempted to formally evaluate their assistance, most reported gathering information about the usefulness of certain aspects of the assistance. While formal evaluations have proven to be a successful means to improve program effectiveness, conducting formal evaluations of the usefulness and effect of bilingual voting assistance is difficult. Key difficulties include identifying the appropriate indicators of success and isolating the effects of bilingual assistance efforts on voters from other influences on election processes. We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for comment. DOJ provided no comments, and the EAC's comments described its recent activities on bilingual voting assistance.
GAO-08-182, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-182
entitled 'Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions'
Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance' which was
released on January 22, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2008:
Bilingual Voting Assistance:
Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing
Assistance:
Bilingual Voting Assistance:
GAO-08-182:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-182, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, contains, among other
things, provisions designed to protect the voting rights of U.S.
citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the English language
may be limited. The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces these
provisions, and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) serves as a
national clearinghouse for election information and procedures. The
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 mandated that GAO study the
implementation of bilingual voting under Section 203 of the act. This
report discusses (1) the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting
assistance as of the November 2006 general election and any subsequent
elections through June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly faced
in providing such assistance; and (2) the perceived usefulness of this
bilingual voting assistance, and the extent to which the selected
jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of such assistance to language
minority voters. To obtain details about this voting assistance, GAO
obtained information from election officials in 14 of the 296
jurisdictions required to provide it, as well as from community
representatives in 11 of these jurisdictions. These jurisdictions were
selected to reflect a range of characteristics such as geographic
diversity and varying language minority groups.
What GAO Found:
All but 1 of the 14 election jurisdictions GAO contacted reported
providing some form of oral or written bilingual voting assistance
through such things as the use of bilingual poll workers, and each of
the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in providing assistance.
Election offices reported providing similar types of oral and written
bilingual voting assistance at each stage of the voting process”from
voter registration to Election Day”for the November 2006 and subsequent
elections. In nine of the jurisdictions, this bilingual assistance was
supplemented by efforts of community-based organizations. In part
because DOJ guidance intentionally provides jurisdictions flexibility
in how they implement bilingual voting requirements, election offices
used varied strategies to implement bilingual programs. Election
officials in each of the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in
implementing bilingual assistance programs, including difficulty in
recruiting bilingual poll workers and effectively targeting where to
provide bilingual voting assistance. Officials in nine jurisdictions
also noted they would benefit from additional guidance for providing
bilingual assistance. The EAC has taken steps to provide additional
guidance to jurisdictions, including plans to develop a set of
management guidelines for jurisdictions to use in implementing their
programs.
GAO identified little quantitative data measuring the usefulness of
various types of bilingual voting assistance. Election officials and
community-based organization representatives noted that certain forms
of assistance, such as having bilingual poll workers, were more useful
than others. Some jurisdictions stated that modifications, including
outreach to language minority groups, would improve the usefulness of
bilingual assistance. While none of the 14 jurisdictions had attempted
to formally evaluate their assistance, most reported gathering
information about the usefulness of certain aspects of the assistance.
While formal evaluations have proven to be a successful means to
improve program effectiveness, conducting formal evaluations of the
usefulness and effect of bilingual voting assistance is difficult. Key
difficulties include identifying the appropriate indicators of success
and isolating the effects of bilingual assistance efforts on voters
from other influences on election processes. We provided a draft of
this report to DOJ and the EAC for comment. DOJ provided no comments,
and the EAC‘s comments described its recent activities on bilingual
voting assistance.
Figure: Examples of Bilingual Assistance: Polling Place Signage and
Poll Worker Name Tag:
This figure is a photo of two samples of bilingual assistance. One is a
sign for a polling place, and the other is an example of a name tag
that a bilingual worker wears.
[See PDF for image]
Source: ELection officials.
[End of figure]
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-182]. For more information, contact
William O. Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Election Officials in All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing
Bilingual Voting Assistance, but Experienced Challenges:
Some Forms of Bilingual Voting Assistance Were Perceived as More Useful
than Others, but Formally Evaluating Its Usefulness Presented Many
Challenges:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Section 203 Coverage Criteria Regarding Language Minority
Groups and Covered Jurisdictions:
Appendix III: DOJ Actions under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act,
1980-2007:
Appendix IV: Examples of Bilingual Voting Written Assistance Materials:
Appendix V: Additional Challenges to Evaluating the Usefulness of
Bilingual Voting Assistance:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Stages of the Election Process:
Table 2: Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance Reportedly Provided by
Election Offices, by Stage in the Election Process:
Table 3: Examples of Bilingual Voter Registration Assistance Reportedly
Provided by Election Offices:
Table 4: Examples of Bilingual Absentee and Early Voting Assistance
Reportedly Provided by Election Offices:
Table 5: Examples of Bilingual Election Day Assistance Reportedly
Provided by Election Offices:
Table 6: Examples of Bilingual Assistance Reportedly Provided by CBOs:
Table 7: Most Useful Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance, as Reported
by Election Officials and CBO Representatives:
Table 8: Suggestions on How Election Offices Can Improve the Usefulness
of Bilingual Voting Assistance, according to Election Officials and CBO
Representatives:
Table 9: Jurisdictions Selected for GAO Site Visits and the Related
Information Used to Make the Selections:
Table 10: Jurisdictions Covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act:
Figures:
Figure 1: Section 203 Coverage Criteria for Implementation of the
Voting Rights Act Provisions Regarding Language Minority Groups:
Figure 2: Excerpt of a Chinese Voter Registration Form - King County,
Wash.
Figure 3: English/Chinese Bilingual Absentee Ballot Request Form - King
County, Wash.
Figure 4: English/Vietnamese Bilingual Sample Ballot - Boston, Mass.
Figure 5: English/Spanish Bilingual Official Ballot - Boston, Mass.
Figure 6: Spanish Voting Instructions - Los Angeles, Calif.
Figure 7: Bilingual Polling Place Signs - King County, Wash.
Figure 8: Bilingual Poll Worker Nametags and Buttons - Orange County,
Calif.
Figure 9: Multilingual Tally Card - Los Angeles, Calif.
Abbreviations:
CBO: community-based organization:
DOJ: U.S. Department of Justice:
EAC: U.S. Election Assistance Commission:
HAVA: Help America Vote Act of 2002:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 18, 2008:
Congressional Committees:
The right to vote has been called one of the most fundamental rights in
our democratic system of government because its effective exercise is
preservative of all others. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended,
(Voting Rights Act) addressed the problem of denial of access to the
right to vote by, among other things, outlawing specified practices and
procedures such as literacy tests. In 1975, the Voting Rights Act was
amended to include section 203, which requires certain
jurisdictions[Footnote 1] to provide bilingual election materials and
assistance to protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain
ethnic groups whose command of the English language may be limited.
These provisions were initially set to expire in 1985 but have been
extended several times. Debate about whether to require bilingual
voting assistance includes advocates of bilingual voting assistance who
assert that it allows language minority voters to more fully
participate in our nation's electoral process, while critics contend
that the costs incurred in providing such assistance are not warranted
because the assistance is not being used by language minority voters.
Enacted on July 27, 2006, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
extended the bilingual provisions until 2032, and required GAO to study
the implementation, effectiveness, and efficiency of current bilingual
voting requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act.[Footnote 2] As discussed with your offices, this report does not
address the efficiency of providing bilingual voting assistance because
of the lack of cost data for providing such assistance. As noted in a
March 2006 report, professors at Arizona State University surveyed
jurisdictions covered by Section 203 and reported that a majority of
the responding jurisdictions were unable to provide the costs of their
bilingual assistance.[Footnote 3] Given this recent survey of
jurisdictions, we focused on obtaining more detailed information about
bilingual voting assistance from selected jurisdictions across the
country. Our objectives were to determine:
* the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance as of the
November 2006 general election and any subsequent elections through
June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly faced in providing such
assistance; and:
* the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance, and the
extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of
such assistance to language minority voters.
To meet our objectives, we visited or collected information from 14
jurisdictions required to provide bilingual voting assistance under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act (covered jurisdictions) in 12
states. We considered surveying all of the 296 covered jurisdictions
but decided against doing so for several reasons, including the March
2006 report cited above on the results of a survey of these same
jurisdictions about similar issues. (For a more detailed discussion of
these considerations as well as a comprehensive description of our
methodology, see app. I.) We chose the 14 jurisdictions because they
reflected a variety of characteristics, such as size (i.e., voting age
population), geographic diversity, and varying language minority
groups. We wanted a diverse group of sites to allow us to report on a
wide range of jurisdictions' experiences with providing bilingual
voting assistance. We also obtained information from representatives of
38 community-based organizations (CBO) in 11 of the 14
jurisdictions.[Footnote 4] We either conducted on-site interviews with
or obtained information from election officials, CBO representatives,
and, to a limited extent, language minority voters in the 14
jurisdictions regarding the bilingual voting assistance provided during
the November 2006 general election and any subsequent elections through
June 2007. In addition, we obtained and reviewed supporting
documentation as evidence of the types of bilingual voting assistance
(e.g., sample ballots, pamphlets, voter education materials, etc.)
reportedly provided to language minority voters in these jurisdictions.
We also obtained these election officials' and CBO representatives'
perceptions about the usefulness of bilingual voting assistance to
language minority voters as well as information on any efforts to
evaluate its usefulness. Because we selected a nongeneralizable sample
of election jurisdictions, the experiences and views discussed in this
report cannot be generalized to all 296 jurisdictions required to
provide bilingual voting assistance under Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act.[Footnote 5]
In addition to the information we obtained from these jurisdictions, we
conducted interviews with and obtained information from other sources.
We interviewed officials and obtained pertinent documents from the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, which is responsible
for providing program guidance and enforcing compliance with the
requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We also
interviewed officials from the U. S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC), which was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA) to serve, among other things, as a clearinghouse and information
resource for election officials with respect to the administration of
federal elections. Additionally, we interviewed the Chief of the Census
Bureau office that determines which jurisdictions are covered under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We reviewed pertinent federal
laws, regulations, and agency guidance pertaining to the Section 203
bilingual voting provisions. We also reviewed prior GAO work,[Footnote
6] other national studies, reports and news articles, attended several
national conferences, and interviewed the secretary of state for one
state with jurisdictions covered by Section 203 to gain further insight
regarding these issues. We conducted this performance audit from
October 2006 to January 2008 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
All but 1 of the 14 election jurisdictions we contacted reported
providing some form of oral or written bilingual voting assistance
through such things as the use of bilingual poll workers and written
translations of voting materials, and each of the 14 jurisdictions
reported challenges in providing assistance. Election offices in most
contacted jurisdictions reported providing similar types of oral and
written bilingual voting assistance at each stage of the voting
process--from voter registration to Election Day--for the November 2006
and subsequent elections. In nine of the contacted jurisdictions, the
bilingual voting assistance reportedly provided by the election offices
was also supplemented by the voluntary efforts of community-based
organizations. In part because DOJ guidance intentionally provides
jurisdictions some flexibility in how they implement bilingual voting
requirements, election offices reported using varied strategies to
recruit bilingual poll workers, determine where to target bilingual
voting assistance programs, and conduct outreach to the language
minority community. Election officials in each of the 14 jurisdictions
reported experiencing a variety of challenges in implementing bilingual
assistance programs, but some key challenges were prevalent among most
election offices contacted. For example, the majority of these election
offices reported experiencing difficulty in recruiting bilingual poll
workers, effectively targeting where to provide bilingual voting
assistance, and designing and translating the bilingual assistance
materials provided. Election officials in 11 jurisdictions also cited
not allocating sufficient resources to their bilingual program as a
challenge to providing more effective bilingual voting assistance.
Officials in nine jurisdictions also told us that they would benefit
from additional guidance or information on best practices for
implementing bilingual assistance programs. The EAC has taken recent
steps to provide additional guidance and information to jurisdictions
on providing bilingual assistance, including plans to develop a set of
management guidelines for jurisdictions to use in implementing their
programs.
Although we identified little data measuring the usefulness of various
types of bilingual voting assistance, election officials in eight
jurisdictions and community-based organization representatives in seven
jurisdictions we contacted told us that they believed certain forms of
assistance were more useful than others. While none of the
jurisdictions reported conducting formal evaluations of the
effectiveness of their bilingual assistance programs, the majority
reported using various informal means to get information about the
effectiveness of certain aspects of their bilingual voting assistance
programs. Both election officials and CBO representatives generally
agreed that having bilingual poll workers available on Election Day was
a key form of assistance to voters. Election officials in four
jurisdictions and community-based organization representatives in six
jurisdictions believed that having translated written materials was
also a key form of assistance. However, election officials in 10
jurisdictions and community-based organization representatives in 9
jurisdictions stated that modifications could be made that would
improve the usefulness of the bilingual services provided to voters.
For example, election officials in four jurisdictions and community-
based organization representatives in nine jurisdictions stated that
election offices' efforts to conduct additional outreach to individual
voters and language minority groups would be key to improving the
usefulness of the bilingual assistance provided to voters. Election
officials in 12 of the jurisdictions as well as community-based
organization representatives in 3 of the jurisdictions we included in
our study reported gathering information about the usefulness of
certain aspects of the bilingual voting assistance provided by the
election offices. For example, election officials in four jurisdictions
reported they had conducted post-election surveys of or obtained
comments from poll workers to determine the number of voters who had
used bilingual assistance at the polls or obtain voter feedback. While
the use of formal program evaluation tools has proven to be a
successful means for federal agencies to improve program effectiveness,
accountability, and service delivery, conducting formal evaluations of
the usefulness and effect of bilingual voting assistance is difficult.
Three key difficulties include identifying the objectives and the
appropriate indicators of success, determining how to measure these
indicators once they have been identified, and isolating the effects of
bilingual voter assistance efforts on language minority voters from
more general voter outreach efforts or other influences on election
processes.
We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for review and
comment. DOJ did not provide comments on the draft of this report but
did provide technical edits, which we incorporated where appropriate.
EAC provided written comments that described its recent activities
related to bilingual voting assistance.
Background:
Bilingual Voting Requirements and Covered Jurisdictions:
The Voting Rights Act[Footnote 7] was intended, among other things, to
protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups
whose command of the English language may be limited. Language minority
provisions contained in Section 203 require covered states and covered
jurisdictions--political subdivisions--that meet the act's coverage
criteria to provide written materials and other assistance, in the
language of certain "language minority groups," in addition to
English.[Footnote 8] Section 203 defines these language minorities as
persons who are of Alaskan Native, American Indian, Asian American, or
Spanish heritage. (See app. II for the specific criteria for
determining which jurisdictions are to be covered under Section 203 and
a list of the covered jurisdictions.)
Where the applicable language minority groups have a commonly used
written language, Section 203 requires covered jurisdictions to provide
written election materials in the languages of the groups. Where the
language of the applicable minority group is oral or unwritten, or in
the case of American Indian and Alaskan Native languages if the
predominant language is historically unwritten, only oral information
and assistance is required. With respect to all covered jurisdictions,
DOJ guidance provides that oral assistance and publicity (e.g., public
information advertisements on the radio) should be provided to the
extent needed to enable members of the applicable language minority
group to participate effectively in the electoral process. Section 203
requirements apply to the entire election process--from voter
registration through Election Day--for all federal, state, and local
elections in the covered jurisdictions.
The DOJ Civil Rights Division is to enforce the covered states and
jurisdictions' compliance with the Section 203 bilingual language
requirements. Where covered states and jurisdictions fail to comply
with the provisions, DOJ may bring a civil action to enforce compliance
with the bilingual language provisions. DOJ may also choose to enter
into a settlement agreement, memorandum of agreement, or consent decree
with a jurisdiction to ensure compliance. These agreements, which may
vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, outline the steps necessary to
comply with the language provisions and may cover issues such as the
number of bilingual poll workers needed or the materials to be
translated. (See app. III for a list of jurisdictions that have been
subject to DOJ actions related to Section 203 since 1980.)
DOJ has published general guidance for election officials on how to
comply with Section 203 in the Code of Federal Regulations[Footnote 9]
and on its Web site. This guidance provides broad information about a
number of topics, including determining the exact language covered
within the Alaskan Native, American Indian, Asian American, or Spanish
heritage language groups and the activities affected by the language
provisions. For example, according to DOJ, jurisdictions should take
all reasonable steps to allow members of applicable language minority
groups to be effectively informed and participate effectively in the
electoral process, but may also exercise some discretion as to where
they focus their efforts. DOJ guidance notes that a jurisdiction need
not, for example, provide bilingual assistance to all of its eligible
voters if it effectively targets its bilingual program to those in
actual need of assistance. In addition, DOJ guidance advises that
compliance is more likely to be achieved when jurisdictions work with
local language minority groups to determine the best methods to inform
the language minority community about available assistance.
Additionally, DOJ instructs that when evaluating whether a jurisdiction
has provided a level of oral assistance needed to enable applicable
language minority groups to participate effectively in the electoral
process, DOJ will consider the number of bilingual poll workers
utilized. It also stresses the importance of accurately translated
materials. Furthermore, the DOJ Civil Rights Division states that its
guidance cannot be prescriptive because election systems and the
circumstances of language minority communities vary widely across the
United States. Instead, DOJ provides guiding principles and practical
suggestions to election officials.
Apart from DOJ's compliance guidelines, election jurisdictions,
including those covered by Section 203, may also receive information
from the EAC designed to assist election officials in meeting the needs
of limited-English proficient voters. The Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA) established the EAC to assist in the administration of federal
elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration
of certain federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum
election administration standards for states and units of local
government with responsibility for the administration of federal
elections, and for other purposes. Section 202 of HAVA, in general,
directs the EAC to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for
the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect to
the administration of federal elections. In addition, Section 801 of
HAVA transferred to the EAC all clearinghouse functions that the Office
of Election Administration--established within the Federal Election
Commission--exercised before the enactment of HAVA. These
responsibilities included providing recommendations and tools so that
election officials could provide materials in alternate languages for
limited English proficiency voters. Furthermore, HAVA requires the EAC
to conduct periodic studies, as the EAC may determine, to include: (1)
methods of ensuring the accessibility of voting, registration, polling
places, and voting equipment to all voters, including individuals with
disabilities (including the blind and visually impaired), Native
American or Alaska Native citizens, and voters with limited proficiency
in the English language, and (2) the technical feasibility of providing
voting materials in eight or more languages for voters who speak those
languages and who have limited English proficiency.
The U.S. Election System:
The U.S. election system is highly decentralized, with primary
responsibility for managing, planning, and conducting elections
residing at the local jurisdiction level. As we reported in June 2006,
there are about 10,500 local government jurisdictions responsible for
conducting statewide and federal elections nationwide.[Footnote 10] Of
these jurisdictions, only 296 are covered by Section 203.[Footnote 11]
States can be divided into two groups according to how they delegate
election responsibilities to local jurisdictions:
* Most states delegate statewide and federal election responsibilities
primarily to counties, with a few of these states delegating these
responsibilities to some cities. One state, Alaska, is divided into
four election regions comprised of boroughs, municipalities, and other
census areas known by the U.S. Census Bureau as county equivalents.
State personnel in these regions are responsible for conducting
statewide and federal elections. This first group of states contains
about one-fourth of the local election jurisdictions nationwide.
* The remaining states delegate these election responsibilities to
subcounty governmental units know by the U.S. Census Bureau as minor
civil divisions. These include entities such as cities, towns,
villages, and townships. This second group of states contains about
three-fourths of the local election jurisdictions nationwide.
Nearly all of the 296 jurisdictions covered under Section 203 are
counties, but they also include county equivalents in some states and
minor civil divisions. In addition to all elections conducted by these
jurisdictions, the provisions of Section 203 also apply to the local
elections conducted by sub-jurisdictions, such as cities, towns, school
districts and other special purpose districts, contained within these
listed jurisdictions.
Local election jurisdictions vary widely in size and complexity,
ranging from small New England townships to Los Angeles County, Calif.,
whose number of registered voters exceeds that of many states. Our
election system is based upon a complex interaction of people (voters,
election officials, and poll workers), processes (controls), and
technology that must work effectively together to achieve a successful
election. Every stage of the election process--registration, absentee
and early voting, preparing for and conducting Election Day activities,
and provisional[Footnote 12] voting--is affected by the interface of
people, processes, and technology. (See table 1 for a discussion of the
stages of the election process.)
Table 1: Stages of the Election Process:
Stage of the election process: Voter registration;
Description and key elements: While voter registration is not a federal
requirement, the District of Columbia and all states, except North
Dakota, generally require citizens to register before voting. The
deadline and requirements for registering vary, but at a minimum, state
eligibility provisions typically require a person to be a U.S. citizen,
at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the state, with some states
requiring a minimum residency period. Citizens apply to register to
vote in various ways, such as at motor vehicle agencies and public
assistance and disability services offices, during voter registration
drives, by mail, or at local voter registrar offices. Election
officials process registration applications and compile and maintain
the list of registered voters that is to be used throughout the
administration of an election.
Stage of the election process: Absentee and early voting;
Description and key elements: All states and the District of Columbia
have provisions allowing voters to cast their ballot before Election
Day by voting absentee--with variations on who may vote absentee,
whether the voter needs an excuse, and the time frames for applying for
and submitting absentee ballots. In addition, some states also allow
early voting, in which the voter goes to a specific location to vote in
person prior to Election Day. As with absentee voting, the specific
circumstances for early voting--such as the dates, times, and
locations--are based on the state and local requirements.
Stage of the election process: Conducting elections;
Description and key elements: Election officials perform a broad range
of activities in preparation for and on Election Day itself. Prior to
an election, officials recruit and train poll workers to have the
skills needed to perform their Election Day duties. Where needed and
required, election officials must also recruit poll workers who speak
languages other than English. Election officials also locate and
reserve polling places, prepare ballots and seek to educate voters on
topics such as what the ballot looks like, how to use a voting machine,
and the location of their particular polling place. These outreach
efforts may be conducted by attending CBO meetings or events,
informational mailings to voters, or advertisements in the local media.
Finally, election officials seek to ensure that voting equipment,
ballots, and supplies are delivered to polling places; On Election Day,
poll workers set up and open the polling places. This can include tasks
such as setting up the voting machines or voting booths, readying
supplies, testing equipment, posting required signs and voter education
information, and completing paperwork. Before a voter receives a ballot
or is directed to a voting machine, poll workers typically are to
verify his or her eligibility. In some cases, poll workers may provide
language assistance to language minority voters.
Stage of the election process: Provisional voting;
Description and key elements: Most states are required to permit
individuals, under certain circumstances, to cast a provisional ballot
in federal elections.[A] While states may choose to allow provisional
ballots under other circumstances, HAVA requires that an individual be
permitted to cast a provisional ballot upon the execution of a written
affirmation before an election official at the polling place.b The
written affirmation must state that the individual is registered to
vote in that jurisdiction and eligible to vote in that election. HAVA
specifies that either the provisional ballot or the written affirmation
information be transmitted to an appropriate election official for a
determination as to whether the individual is eligible to vote under
state law. If individuals are determined to be eligible voters, their
provisional ballots are to be counted as votes in accordance with state
law.
Source: GAO.
[A] The United States Election Assistance Commission, 2004 Election Day
Survey: "How We Voted: People, Ballots, and Polling Places" (Sept.
2005).
[B] Under HAVA, states that had either (1) no voter registration
requirements for voters with respect to federal elections (e.g., North
Dakota) or (2) polling place registration on Election Day with respect
to federal elections (as in Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming) in effect on and after August 1, 1994, are not subject to
HAVA's provisional voting requirements.
[End of table]
Prior Work Related to the Elections Process:
Over the years we have completed a number of reviews related to
elections. In 1986[Footnote 13] and 1997[Footnote 14] we issued reports
addressing the types of bilingual assistance provided by covered
jurisdictions, as well as the cost of this assistance.[Footnote 15] In
our 1997 report, we found that most jurisdictions reportedly were
providing both oral and written assistance. We also issued a series of
reports following the November 2000 general election addressing a range
of issues that emerged during that election and identifying challenges
that election officials reported facing throughout the election
process. In addition, we have issued reports since the November 2004
general election on voter registration issues and security and
reliability of electronic voting. In 2006, we reported on a wide array
of election issues including discussing, at each major stage of the
election process, changes to election systems since the 2000 election,
and challenges encountered in the November 2004 general
election.[Footnote 16] (See related GAO products at the end of this
report for a list of our prior work.)
In addition to our work on elections, professors at Arizona State
University released a comprehensive study in March 2006 regarding
language minority assistance practices in public elections.[Footnote
17] Their study, based on survey data obtained from jurisdictions
currently or previously covered by Section 203, updated the information
from our 1986 and 1997 reports regarding the costs associated with
providing language assistance and also discussed the types of
assistance provided. About half of the surveyed jurisdictions
responded, and of the respondents, a majority was unable to provide the
costs of their bilingual assistance programs. Additionally, just over
80 percent of responding jurisdictions reported providing some type of
language assistance.
Election Officials in All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing
Bilingual Voting Assistance, but Experienced Challenges:
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions included in our review
reported providing some type of bilingual voting assistance at each
stage of the election process but also reported challenges in providing
this assistance. In part because DOJ's guidance intentionally provides
jurisdictions some flexibility in how they implement bilingual voting
requirements and the needs and preferences of language minority
communities vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, election officials
in these 13 jurisdictions reported using varying strategies to organize
their bilingual voting assistance program staff and offices, work with
CBOs, recruit bilingual poll workers, determine where to target their
bilingual voting assistance programs, and conduct outreach to the
language minority community. In addition, election officials in these
13 jurisdictions also reported experiencing a variety of challenges in
providing bilingual assistance, with the key challenges being: (1)
recruiting and ensuring quality performance of bilingual poll workers;
(2) targeting bilingual voting assistance; (3) designing and
translating bilingual voting assistance materials; and (4) allocating
sufficient resources to provide bilingual voting assistance. Although
election officials in 12 jurisdictions reported receiving some degree
of guidance or assistance for addressing Section 203 requirements from
DOJ and other sources, officials in 9 jurisdictions reported wanting
additional guidance or assistance. The EAC has taken recent steps to
provide additional guidance and information to jurisdictions on
providing bilingual assistance.
All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing Some Type of Bilingual
Voting Assistance throughout the Election Process:
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions reported providing
some type of written assistance and/or oral assistance for language
minority voters.[Footnote 18] This assistance was provided throughout
the election process--from voter registration to Election Day. Written
assistance included such things as translated voter registration forms,
ballots, sample ballots, instructions, and signs. Oral assistance
included bilingual phone and in-office assistance, translated audio
instructions and ballots, bilingual poll workers, and bilingual in-
person outreach activities. The various types of bilingual voting
assistance and the numbers of jurisdictions that reported providing
each type of assistance at each stage of the election process are
summarized in table 2.
Table 2: Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance Reportedly Provided by
Election Offices, by Stage in the Election Process:
Stages of the election process: Voter registration;
Types of assistance[A]: Written: * Bilingual or translated voter
registration forms (10)[B];
Types of assistance[A]: Oral: * In-person outreach activities (12);
* Bilingual in-office assistance (10);
* Bilingual phone assistance (10).
Stages of the election process: Absentee and early voting;
Types of assistance[A]: Written: * Bilingual or translated ballots
(12);
* Bilingual or translated absentee voter registration forms (8);
* Translated voting instructions (7);
* Bilingual signs (5);
* Translated sample ballots (4);
Types of assistance[A]: Oral: * Bilingual phone assistance (11);
* Bilingual in-office assistance (10);
* In-person outreach activities (10);
* Translated audio ballots (7);
* Bilingual in-person early voting assistance (5).
Stages of the election process: Election Day voting (includes
provisional voting);
Types of assistance[A]: Written: * Bilingual or translated ballots
(12);
* Translated voting instructions (11);
* Bilingual signs and buttons (11);
* Translated sample ballots (10);
Types of assistance[A]: Oral: * Bilingual poll workers (13);
* Recorded audio ballots (12) and instructions (11);
* Bilingual phone assistance (9); * Special interpreters (6) and non-
paid assistants (2).
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
[A] For each of the election offices contacted, there was little
variation between the types of assistance provided in the 2006 General
Election and in other subsequent elections. Thus, we did not
distinguish between the 2006 General Election and other subsequent
elections in this table.
[B] The number of jurisdictions where each type of assistance was
reportedly provided is in parentheses.
[End of table]
Voter Registration Assistance Reported by Jurisdictions:
Election officials in 12 jurisdictions reported providing some type of
bilingual voter registration assistance and 11 of these jurisdictions
reported offering both oral and written assistance. All but four
election offices included in our study reported providing translated
voter registration forms and all but two reported conducting in-person
voter registration outreach activities targeted at the language
minority community. Election offices reported a wide range of venues
and methods--such as staff participation in community parades and at
swearing in ceremonies for new citizens--to conduct voter registration
outreach to the language minority community. In addition to these
outreach activities, representatives of most election offices also
reported offering bilingual voter registration assistance to
individuals who phoned or visited the election office. (See table 3 for
examples of written and oral bilingual assistance reportedly provided
to assist language minority community voters with voter registration.)
Table 3: Examples of Bilingual Voter Registration Assistance Reportedly
Provided by Election Offices:
Written assistance: Miami-Dade County, FL, election officials reported
providing all voter registration applications in English, Spanish, and
Creole, though they were only required under Section 203 to provide
written bilingual voting assistance for the Hispanic community.
Written assistance: The Secretary of State produces the Chinese version
of the voter registration form for residents of King County, WA.[A] The
translated form did not ask registrants whether they would prefer to
receive future election materials in Chinese, but a King County
elections official reported assuming that registrants who used a
Chinese registration form would also want a Chinese ballot.
Written assistance: In Suffolk County, NY, the Board of Elections
reportedly conducted widespread bilingual information mailings to
explain the voter registration process to language minority voters 20-
30 days prior to Election Day.
Oral assistance: In Harris County, TX, the Tax Assessor's Office, which
is responsible for voter registration, told us they had two community
outreach staff that conducted voter outreach to various Hispanic and
Vietnamese CBOs, attended community events to encourage people to
register to vote, and selected deputies within the language communities
to register voters.
Oral assistance: Election officials in Los Angeles County, CA, reported
having a multilingual phone line with live bilingual staff 2 weeks
prior to major elections and a language line translator during non-
election season.
Oral assistance: In Sandoval County, NM, one election official believed
the most effective form of bilingual voter registration outreach to
Native American communities was staff attendance at Native American
events and visits to individual voters' homes. Sandoval County, NM,
election officials also reported speaking to Tribal Councils of the
Pueblos and the Navajo Chapters.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
[A] An example of Washington State's Chinese voter registration form is
provided in appendix IV.
[End of table]
Bilingual Absentee and Early Voting Assistance Reported by
Jurisdictions:
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions included in our study
reported providing some form of bilingual voting assistance for
absentee and/or early voting.[Footnote 19] The most common type of
assistance (12 jurisdictions) was bilingual ballots or separate
translated ballots for absentee or early voters. Other types of
assistance provided by varying numbers of jurisdictions included
bilingual or separate translated absentee voter registration forms;
sample ballots and voting instructions; bilingual phone assistance;
bilingual in-office assistance; and bilingual poll workers at early
voting locations. (See table 4 for examples of written and oral
bilingual assistance reportedly provided to minority language absentee
and early voters.)
Table 4: Examples of Bilingual Absentee and Early Voting Assistance
Reportedly Provided by Election Offices:
Written assistance: City of Boston election officials reported
providing English-Spanish bilingual absentee ballots.
Written assistance: Orange County, CA, election officials reported
mailing translated sample ballots to language minority absentee voters
before mailing official paper ballots. Orange County, CA, election
officials also reported that bilingual voting signs and instructions
were posted at each early voting site in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and
Vietnamese.
Written assistance: Bilingual absentee ballot request forms in King
County, WA, allowed registrants to indicate if they would like to
receive future election materials in Chinese.[A] This feature allowed
election officials to identify voters desiring bilingual voting
assistance.
Oral assistance: Los Angeles County, CA, election officials reported
having bilingual poll workers at 17 touch screen early voting sites
with voting systems in 7 languages (including English).
Oral assistance: A Jackson County, SD, election official reported
offering Lakota[B] audio assistance on electronic voting machines 2-3
weeks before the November 2006 General Election.
Oral assistance: City of Boston election officials reported offering
language minority voters bilingual absentee voting assistance if they
called the Boston Election Department's telephone line or walked into
the office. These officials also reported working with staff in elderly
housing communities to help them provide assistance to elderly voters
who were disabled, ill, or otherwise not able to vote on Election Day.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
[A] A copy of King County's bilingual absentee ballot request form is
provided in appendix IV.
[B] Election officials we met with in South Dakota stated that Lakota
was not historically a written language. However, two community leaders
we met with noted that written Lakota was being taught in at least some
schools.
[End of table]
Election Day Assistance Reported by Jurisdictions:
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions reported providing
some type of written and/or oral assistance for language minority
voters on Election Day. As with absentee and early voting assistance,
one of the most common types of written assistance reportedly provided
on Election Day was bilingual ballots or separate translated written
ballots, which were reportedly provided in 12 of the jurisdictions. The
most common form of oral bilingual voting assistance reportedly
provided on Election Day was bilingual poll workers, who were provided
in 13 jurisdictions. Two jurisdictions reportedly provided audio
translations for largely unwritten Native American languages. (See
table 5 for examples of written and oral bilingual assistance
reportedly provided on Election Day.)
Table 5: Examples of Bilingual Election Day Assistance Reportedly
Provided by Election Offices:
Written assistance: Miami-Dade County, FL, election officials reported
that all ballots (absentee ballots, paper, and electronic DRE ballots)
were available in English, Spanish, and Creole, though they were only
required by Section 203 to provide written assistance for the Hispanic
community.
Written assistance: Montgomery County, MD, election officials reported
that all written Montgomery County, MD, voting materials (including
bilingual sample ballots posted in the polling place or booth,
bilingual voting instructions, bilingual posters at the polling
locations, and bilingual "I voted" buttons) were bilingual Spanish-
English to prevent anyone from failing to make the Spanish language
materials accessible.
Written assistance: King County, WA, election officials reported
posting bilingual signs in their polling places.[A].
Oral assistance: In Orange County, CA, election officials reported that
poll workers wore a badge stating the language he or she spoke and were
instructed to actively provide bilingual assistance by approaching
voters to ask if they need assistance.[B].
Oral assistance: Cook County, IL, city election officials reported that
they had multiple phone lines available on Election Day that language
minority voters used to obtain oral assistance in multiple languages.
Oral assistance: A Sandoval County, NM, election official reported
providing "translation tapes" for minority-language voters to listen to
before they voted. (In addition to Spanish, Sandoval County, NM,
election officials reportedly provide bilingual voting assistance for
speakers of Keresan, Towa, and Navajo--languages that are historically
unwritten.)
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials.
[A] Examples of bilingual polling place signs reportedly posted in King
County, WA, are provided in appendix IV.
[B] Examples of the badges reportedly worn by bilingual poll workers in
Orange County, CA, are provided in appendix IV.
[End of table]
See appendix IV for examples of bilingual materials reportedly
available to voters in some of the locations we visited.
Bilingual Assistance Reported by Community-Based Organizations:
CBOs reported providing various types of bilingual voting assistance in
nine of the jurisdictions included in our study. Seven key types of
assistance that CBOs reported providing were:
* Informing the language minority community about voting (reportedly
provided by CBOs in nine jurisdictions);
* Registering language minority voters (8);
* Providing assistance to language minority voters on Election Day (7);
* Helping determine the types of bilingual voting assistance needed and
which voters need it (7);
* Informing language minority voters about early and/or absentee voting
(6);
* Recruiting and training bilingual poll workers (6); and:
* Helping translate or design the bilingual or translated ballot (4).
The bilingual voting assistance provided by CBOs generally took one of
three forms: supplementing election office efforts, working with
election offices to provide assistance, or providing assistance that
otherwise was not provided by the election office. For example, some
CBO representatives reported providing types of assistance similar to
those offered by election offices, such as registering language
minority citizens to vote or answering voters' questions. Other CBO
representatives reported helping election officials provide assistance,
such as helping to recruit bilingual poll workers or translating
official election materials. Finally, some CBO representatives reported
conducting activities related to bilingual voting assistance that
election officials did not do, such as employing poll monitors and
providing language minority voters with transportation to the polls on
Election Day. Some examples of the specific activities the 38 CBOs
included in our study reported undertaking as part of their bilingual
voting assistance efforts are summarized in table 6.
Table 6: Examples of Bilingual Assistance Reportedly Provided by CBOs:
Efforts to supplement bilingual voting assistance provided by election
offices: A CBO serving the Chinese American community in the City of
Boston, MA, reported holding voter education workshops in local low
income housing units or community buildings to register people to vote
and provide information about both the voting process and the bilingual
assistance available.
Efforts to supplement bilingual voting assistance provided by election
offices: A CBO serving the Spanish-speaking community in Montgomery
County, MD, reported conducting significant media outreach, including
partnering with a Spanish radio station to promote voter registration
and hosting press conferences and events to attract Spanish language
media and all local television and major newspapers' attention to voter
education.
Efforts to supplement bilingual voting assistance provided by election
offices: One Los Angeles County, CA, CBO serving the Asian American
community reported hosting a toll-free hotline to take calls and answer
questions from prospective voters around Election Day. According to CBO
representatives, most of the calls to the phone line were in Mandarin
and many calls were from citizens who had not voted before.
Efforts to collaborate with election offices in providing assistance:
In King County, WA, representatives of a coalition of CBOs serving the
Chinese American community reported being very involved in recruiting
bilingual poll workers. They reported sending out e-mails and
soliciting volunteers. The coalition also reported organizing a phone
survey of bilingual poll workers to learn about their experience on
Election Day. They then used this information to create a video used to
train poll workers.
Efforts to collaborate with election offices in providing assistance:
One representative of a CBO in Harris County, TX, reported reviewing
and commenting on the accuracy of a demographic map that county
election officials used to determine where to target resources.
Efforts to collaborate with election offices in providing assistance:
Representatives of various Asian American CBOs in Cook County, IL,
reported that they translated election materials in the past but the
demand became overwhelming. Thus, the election office started using a
private company for the translations or did the translations itself.
However, these CBOs reported that they still occasionally checked
translations and provided the election office with feedback on
transliteration.
Efforts to provide assistance not otherwise provided by the election
office: A representative with one CBO reported monitoring around 50-
100 polling sites in Los Angeles County, CA, for the November 2006
election. This CBO compiled poll monitoring reports, sent them to
election officials, and walked through these reports with election
officials at post-election debrief meetings.
Efforts to provide assistance not otherwise provided by the election
office: A CBO representing the Filipino community in Los Angeles
County, CA, reportedly provided voters with transportation to the polls
because some polling places were difficult to locate and not convenient
to public transportation.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from CBO representatives.
[End of table]
Jurisdictions Reported Using Various Strategies to Implement Their
Bilingual Voting Assistance Programs:
Election officials in jurisdictions included in our review reported
using varying strategies to implement their bilingual voting assistance
programs. These strategies included combinations of (1) employing
bilingual voting assistance coordinators; (2) working with CBOs; (3)
recruiting bilingual poll workers; (4) determining where to
target[Footnote 20] their bilingual voting assistance programs; and (5)
conducting outreach to the language minority community. The range of
election office strategies may be due in part to the flexibility of the
guidance that the DOJ Civil Rights Division provides to help covered
jurisdictions address the requirements of Section 203, as the guidance
places the responsibility of determining how best to provide the
required assistance with the individual jurisdictions. DOJ states that
its guidance is intentionally flexible because the needs and
preferences of language minority communities vary from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. This flexibility allows election offices to tailor their
programs to try to meet their jurisdiction's unique needs.
Nine Jurisdictions Employed Bilingual Voting Assistance Coordinators:
Election officials in nine of the jurisdictions included in our study
reported that they employed dedicated coordinators to manage their
bilingual voting assistance programs. Officials in two of these offices
noted that employing a bilingual voting assistance coordinator who was
familiar with the demographics of the local language minority
communities was particularly helpful in effectively determining where
to target their bilingual voting assistance. In addition, election
offices in four of the six jurisdictions that were required to provide
assistance in more than one language reported having at least one
designated staff for each covered language minority group. For example,
the Orange County, Calif., registrar of voters reported having one or
two bilingual "community program specialists" devoted to bilingual
voting assistance in each of its covered languages--Chinese, Korean,
Spanish, and Vietnamese.
Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Worked with Community-Based
Organizations but Differed in Their Approach and Extent of Activities:
Election officials in 10 of the 14 jurisdictions reported that they
worked with CBOs in providing bilingual voting assistance. Of these,
officials in seven reported having formal election advisory committees
or task forces that included CBO representatives. Election officials
reported that some of these advisory committees provided input such as
feedback on elections, comments on translated election materials, and
suggestions for targeting bilingual voting assistance. For example, in
King County, Wash., the election office reportedly received guidance
and assistance from a "Section 203 Community Coalition," which was
comprised of five CBOs representing the Chinese community. According to
coalition members, the coalition worked closely with the election
office, meeting as often as twice a month. In one example of their
collaboration, King County's "Section 203 Community Coalition"
reportedly introduced the idea of conducting surname analysis to
identify Chinese-speaking potential voters and then mail the identified
individuals a postcard notifying them about bilingual voting assistance
and encouraging them to return the postcard to the King County
Elections Department if they would like to receive future elections
materials in Chinese. The coalition conducted the analysis, the county
paid for the mailing, and both parties told us it was a very successful
collaborative effort.
The three elections offices that reported working with CBOs but did not
report having formal advisory committees reportedly worked with CBOs in
other ways. For example, Seward County, Kans., election officials
reported working with CBOs on voter outreach to minority language
voters by distributing bilingual voter registration cards. Similarly,
Suffolk County, N.Y., election officials reported working and
communicating regularly with a network of CBOs to disseminate election
information to language minority voters through churches, community
centers, and households. Suffolk County election officials stated that
their relationships with CBOs were very helpful because they
facilitated voter outreach and expanded the Bureau of Elections' access
to people in the language minority community.
Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Had Bilingual Poll Workers and Used
Multiple Methods to Recruit Them:
Election officials in 13 jurisdictions we contacted reported recruiting
bilingual poll workers through a combination of efforts. These efforts
included: (1) contacting CBOs and language minority media, (2) posting
recruitment materials in language minority neighborhoods, (3)
contacting potential poll workers directly, (4) recruiting from the
public and private sector employers, and (5) conducting direct
mailings. According to officials in nine jurisdictions, one method of
recruiting bilingual poll workers was communication with
representatives of CBOs or the minority community who facilitated
contacting and recruiting bilingual poll workers. In addition, election
officials in some jurisdictions reported using language minority media
such as in-language radio, television, and newspapers to encourage
members of the language minority community to serve as bilingual poll
workers. For example, an election official in King County, Wash.,
reported success with a televised public service announcement featuring
a Chinese American former Governor of Washington State encouraging
other Chinese Americans to volunteer as bilingual poll workers. Five
elections offices reported posting signs in language minority
neighborhoods--in schools, libraries, stores, and civic associations--
to recruit bilingual poll workers. In the City of Los Angeles, election
officials reported posting signs in ethnic grocery stores in language
minority neighborhoods to recruit bilingual poll workers. Election
officials in five jurisdictions also reported recruiting bilingual poll
workers through in-person contact with potential applicants at language
minority community events, through e-mail messages, and by making
targeted phone calls. Other jurisdictions reported more success in
recruiting either high school or college students to be bilingual poll
workers than did those who tried recruiting bilingual poll workers from
the private sector. Representatives of several election offices
reported supplementing these efforts by recruiting local government
employees to be bilingual poll workers. Finally, in three of the
election offices we contacted, officials stated that direct mailings
were used to recruit bilingual poll workers.
Jurisdictions' Targeting of Bilingual Voting Assistance Efforts
Involved a Combination of Approaches:
To determine where to target their bilingual voting assistance efforts,
election officials in many of the jurisdictions we contacted reported
using some combination of surname analysis, reviews of U.S. Census
Bureau and other demographic data, input from CBOs, and analysis of
voter requests for bilingual voting information. Specifically, these
efforts included the following:
* Analyzing surnames: Election officials in eight jurisdictions
reported using surname analysis to try to identify those areas within a
jurisdiction that contain a higher concentration of voting age citizens
with surnames indicative of the covered minority language. A few
election officials stated that surname analysis was most helpful in
identifying language minority individuals in largely homogeneous
communities or in identifying neighborhoods that were undergoing
demographic transitions and experiencing an influx of new language
minority communities. Other election officials reported that although
surname analysis may not have been an accurate tool, it was an approach
prescribed in a legal agreement negotiated with the DOJ Civil Rights
Division. As a result, officials chose to use surname analysis, but in
combination with other targeting approaches. Officials with the DOJ
Civil Rights Division noted that in many of the agreements reached
between the Civil Rights Division and local election officials, surname
analysis was used--in the absence of other reliable data--as a starting
point for determining appropriate sites for bilingual poll workers.
* Analyzing demographic data: Election officials in some jurisdictions
reported using demographic data and information from the U.S. Census
Bureau and other sources to identify language minority communities
within their jurisdictions. For example, due to concerns that surname
analysis alone was not allowing them to effectively target assistance,
election officials in Harris County, Tex., told us they hired a
contractor to use Census data to identify areas with population
concentrations of language minority individuals within their
jurisdiction. Election officials in Montgomery County, Md., reported
using a combination of Census data and other data sources such as
demographic statistics on students in the jurisdiction's public school
system to target those precincts with the greatest need for bilingual
voting assistance.
* Obtaining input from CBOs: Election officials in nine jurisdictions
reported obtaining input from CBOs to better target their bilingual
voting assistance programs. Officials in seven of the election offices
we contacted reported seeking targeting guidance from their language
minority advisory committees. For example, an election official in
Montgomery County, Md., reported that their multicultural outreach
committee has been very helpful in identifying which voters need
bilingual voting assistance, the types of assistance to be provided,
and at which precincts assistance needs to be provided. In Los Angeles
County, Calif., election officials stated that they obtained input from
CBOs as part of their systematic targeting process to identify
precincts that may need bilingual voting assistance--if a community
partner organization indicated that a neighborhood should be targeted
for a particular language, the polling places in that neighborhood were
considered "targeted."
* Analyzing voter requests: Officials in four election offices reported
utilizing records of past voter requests for or use of bilingual voting
assistance to target future bilingual voting assistance efforts. For
example, some officials reported collecting data on requests for
bilingual assistance noted on voter registration cards, absentee ballot
request forms, and phone calls to the elections office. In addition,
election officials in three jurisdictions reported asking poll workers
to record the number of requests for bilingual voting assistance on
Election Day. Election officials in Los Angeles County, Calif., for
example, reported that they tracked requests for language assistance by
precinct and had poll workers use a "multilingual tally card" to keep
track of the numbers of voters requesting language assistance on
Election Day. (An example of a multilingual tally card used in Los
Angeles County is provided in app. IV.) Election officials in five
jurisdictions, however, stated that they did not or could not track
voter requests for assistance. For example, Seward County, Kans.,
election officials stated that Kansas state law forbids the election
office from tracking individuals' requests for bilingual voting
assistance. Similarly, an election official in Montgomery County, Md.,
reported that due to personal privacy concerns, the county did not
track usage of bilingual voting assistance. Election officials in
Harris County, Tex., noted that their state-issued voter registration
forms did not have a place for registrants to indicate their preferred
language; therefore, it was not possible for the local jurisdictions to
track requests for assistance using voter registration forms.
Most Jurisdictions Conducted Outreach but Reportedly Used Diverse
Methods to Engage Language Minority Communities:
Election officials in 13 jurisdictions told us that they used various
strategies to reach out to language minority voters to inform them of
the availability of bilingual voting assistance and to educate them
about the election process. These strategies included working with
CBOs; using ethnic media outlets; conducting in-person contacts; and
posting bilingual voting information on the Internet. Specifically,
these efforts included the following:
* Working with CBOs: Election officials in nine jurisdictions reported
working with representatives of CBOs to conduct bilingual outreach and
voter education. For example, Suffolk County, N.Y., election officials
stated that they worked closely with the network of organizations
active in their language minority communities to disseminate election
information to churches, community centers, and households in their
efforts to reach language minority voters. Election officials in the
City of Boston reported that they communicated regularly with the CBO
representatives that participate in the city's Voter Outreach and
Education Task Force, and that the CBOs played an active, necessary
role in disseminating bilingual voting assistance information.
Similarly, election officials in King County, Wash., reported that CBOs
provided substantial amounts of outreach, workshops, and seminars
informing and educating language minorities of the availability of
election materials and how to use the new voting system implemented in
the jurisdiction.
* Using media outlets: Jurisdictions reported using a variety of media
outlets to conduct bilingual outreach and voter education. Election
officials in most of the jurisdictions included in our study reported
using print media, radio or televised public service announcements to
conduct bilingual outreach, and the types of media used sometimes
varied among the targeted language minority communities. For example,
election officials in Orange County, Calif., reported using Spanish-
speaking television stations to target information to the Latino
community but that using Vietnamese radio stations and newspapers were
more effective for reaching the Vietnamese community. Election
officials in the City of Boston reported that they worked with the
Ethnic Media Studies Department at the University of Massachusetts to
determine what ethnic media outlets were most used by the language
minority community in their jurisdiction. Finally, election officials
in six jurisdictions also reported using targeted translated mailings
to inform the covered language minority community about election
processes and important voter information. These included translated
voter registration forms, sample ballots, and voting instructions.
* Using in-person contact: Election officials in 11 jurisdictions
reported using in-person contact with the language minority community
as another means to inform targeted individuals about the availability
of bilingual voting assistance and to educate them on election
processes. For example, election officials for the City of Boston
reported that in-person contact was the most effective outreach method
in their jurisdiction. As a result, their staff attended and registered
voters at language minority community forums and swearing-in ceremonies
for new citizens. Election officials in other jurisdictions also
reported that they visited language minority community events or
locations such as festivals and libraries to conduct voter outreach and
education. For example, an election official in King County, Wash.,
stated that she participated in voter education forums held by a CBO to
talk through the voter's pamphlet with Chinese-speaking voters, provide
instructions on how to fill out the ballot, and encourage participants
to share their knowledge with others in the language minority
community.
* Posting information on the Internet: Officials in 11 of the election
offices we contacted reported posting bilingual voting assistance
materials and information on their websites, though to varying extents.
For example, election officials in Harris County, Tex., told us they
translated aspects of their Web site to provide language minority
individuals with essential voting information, including important
dates, early voting and Election Day information, sample ballots, and
information on how to operate the jurisdiction's voting system. In
contrast, Orange County, Calif., election officials reported that
nearly all of the web content provided in English is available in each
of the four covered languages. Los Angeles County, Calif., election
officials reported focusing their Web site's language content on
frequently utilized materials while working to make more election
procedures available in the county's required minority languages.
All 14 Jurisdictions Reported Challenges in Providing Bilingual Voting
Assistance:
All 14 jurisdictions we contacted reported experiencing challenges in
providing bilingual assistance, with the key challenges related to: (1)
recruiting and ensuring quality performance of bilingual poll workers,
(2) targeting bilingual voting assistance, (3) designing and
translating bilingual voting assistance materials, and (4) allocating
sufficient resources to bilingual voting assistance. In addition to
identifying these key challenges, officials in nine jurisdictions
expressed a desire for more guidance or assistance on providing
bilingual voting assistance.
Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Recruiting Bilingual Poll
Workers and with Bilingual Poll Worker Performance:
Election officials in nine of the jurisdictions stated that they had
difficulty recruiting bilingual poll workers for a variety of reasons.
For example, five jurisdictions reported that recruiting was difficult
because of the long hours and minimal pay provided to bilingual poll
workers--they believed that many individuals in the language minority
communities had multiple jobs and could not afford to commit to the
long hours required of a bilingual poll worker on Election Day.
Election officials in five jurisdictions also added that it was a
challenge to recruit bilingual poll workers who were willing to serve
at a polling place outside their home precinct. In their experience,
some bilingual poll workers either did not have the means to travel to
other polling sites or were reluctant to do so. In addition,
demographic shifts in some jurisdictions reportedly created recruiting
challenges. For example, representatives of four election offices
stated that recruiting was especially challenging for new language
minority communities with only a very limited pool of potential
bilingual volunteers or when members of the language minority community
that are fluent in the covered language are decreasing in numbers due
to aging. In one jurisdiction, an election official reported that some
voters who reside in areas that are not historically language minority
communities do not want to be identified as language minority speakers;
therefore, they hesitate to volunteer.
In addition to recruiting problems, representatives of election offices
from two jurisdictions reported that they experienced challenges
related to bilingual poll worker performance. For example, election
officials in Los Angeles County, Calif., stated that, in their
experience, the performance of bilingual poll workers has been
adversely affected by poor treatment by other poll workers that did not
recognize the importance of providing bilingual voting assistance.
Election officials in this jurisdiction also stated that CBOs have
complained in the past that some of the bilingual poll workers were
unwilling to assist language minority voters due to differences in
their personal and cultural backgrounds, noting that acculturating new
bilingual poll workers into the election environment was an issue they
needed to address. In addition, election officials in this jurisdiction
mentioned that while cultural sensitivity and diversity training was
included in their general poll worker training, it was very difficult
to spend sufficient time on the topic when there was a great deal of
material to cover during the brief poll worker training time available.
Similarly, election officials in the City of Boston reported difficulty
managing some veteran poll workers who were reticent to use the
training associated with the bilingual voting aspects of their job.
According to these officials, expanding the length of training to
address these issues has not been an option because trainees' attention
to the material covered was limited to a certain amount of time,
attendance is not required, and it could increase costs associated with
the training.
Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Targeting Those Voters Who
Needed Bilingual Voting Assistance:
Election officials in eight of the jurisdictions we contacted reported
that limitations in surname analysis, U.S. Census Bureau data, or
demographic shifts in their jurisdictions made it difficult to
effectively target bilingual voting assistance. Election officials in
several jurisdictions reported that surname analysis did not accurately
indicate whether individuals were actually limited-English proficient
or proficient in the covered language, and added that surname analysis
may overstate the need for bilingual assistance in particular
precincts. Election officials in Los Angeles County, Calif., also noted
that surname analysis was not useful in jurisdictions containing
multiple language minority groups, especially those with many
overlapping surnames. For example, these officials reported that it was
very difficult to correctly distinguish between members of the Filipino
and Spanish-speaking communities using surname analysis because
Filipino surnames overlap with Spanish surnames.
Election officials in some jurisdictions also asserted that U.S. Census
Bureau data are not accurate or detailed enough to enable them to
effectively target language minority voters or, in some cases,
determine the precise dialect a covered language minority community
speaks. For example, Suffolk County, N.Y., election officials reported
that they have had challenges targeting language minority individuals
who are eligible to register and vote due to the number of undocumented
persons included in Census data who are not registered to vote. In
addition, election officials for Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska,
explained that while the Census data identified the jurisdiction as
requiring bilingual voting assistance in American Indian and Aleut
languages, it is not clear what specific languages or dialects
officials should target.[Footnote 21] Some election officials also
explained that targeting bilingual voting assistance can be more
difficult when the language minority communities are not concentrated
in discrete geographic areas within the jurisdiction. For example, Los
Angeles County, Calif., election officials reported that the diversity
of the county's population and its constant demographic shifts require
their office to modify their targeted precincts every 2 years, whereas
Census data for jurisdictions covered under Section 203 are currently
updated every 10 years.
Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Designing or Translating
Bilingual Voting Assistance Materials:
Election officials in nine jurisdictions reported difficulties
designing or translating their bilingual voting assistance materials.
Election officials reported that translating ballot language was
particularly challenging because of differences in the meanings of
words in various dialects of a given language or difficulties finding
comparable phrasing in the covered language. Some election officials
reported that this challenge was exacerbated by the limited time they
had to review and correct errors before printing and distributing the
election materials. For example, election officials in Montgomery
County, Md., reported that they operated under short time frames with
the vendors that produced their materials and had just 7 days to proof
the ballot layout, design, spelling, audio pronunciation, touch screen
text, and optical scan text before the materials had to be printed. In
addition, some election officials noted that a translated ballot in a
minority language is often longer than the English version--this
difference in text length made it difficult to design a user-friendly
bilingual ballot.
Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulty Allocating Sufficient Resources
to Their Bilingual Voting Assistance Efforts:
Election officials in 11 jurisdictions reported that they had
difficulty allocating either sufficient staff or financial resources to
their bilingual voting assistance efforts. Election officials in five
jurisdictions stated that additional staff would allow them to more
effectively conduct outreach to the language minority communities. For
example, an election official from Miami-Dade County, Fla., stated that
having limited staff available to send to language minority communities
has made it more difficult to educate language minority voters about
the election process. Additionally, election officials in two
jurisdictions stated that having sufficient staff would allow them to
more effectively translate and review the written and oral assistance
provided. In Montgomery County, Md., election officials reported that
they rely heavily on unpaid community volunteers but with additional
funding the county could conduct more outreach activities.
Many Election Officials We Contacted Desired Additional Guidance and
Information on Providing Bilingual Assistance:
Although officials in 12 jurisdictions reported receiving some degree
of guidance or assistance from DOJ or other sources, officials in 9
jurisdictions also reported that more guidance or assistance may be
helpful. For example, election officials in the City of Boston stated
that they received some assistance from DOJ in the past, but that
additional guidance and greater coordination among jurisdictions that
provide bilingual voting assistance would also be beneficial. These
officials told us they had taken the initiative to communicate with
other covered jurisdictions to learn about their approaches to
providing bilingual voting assistance but believed that a more
organized system for information sharing between jurisdictions would be
useful. These same views were echoed by election officials
participating in discussion sessions we held on bilingual voting
assistance during two national election conferences on election issues
sponsored by the Election Center in 2007. Specifically, in both
discussion sessions, several election officials noted that additional
guidance and greater coordination among jurisdictions that provide
bilingual voting assistance would be beneficial. In addition, an
official from a jurisdiction included in our study stated that the
Secretary of State's Office and DOJ had offered assistance, but little
to none had been received. Election officials in five jurisdictions
that reported receiving guidance or assistance from DOJ stated that
some of the assistance was not helpful, accurate, or reliable.
Officials with the DOJ Civil Rights Division stated that their office
offers guidance and assistance to local election officials on how to
comply with Section 203, but it is the responsibility of covered
jurisdictions to determine what languages, forms of languages, or
dialects will be effective in their jurisdictions. Furthermore, these
officials stated that its guidance is intentionally flexible because
election systems and the circumstances of language minority communities
vary widely across the United States. Instead, DOJ states that it
provides guiding principles and practical suggestions for election
officials to use. DOJ officials also noted that they have taken steps
to make covered jurisdictions aware of this guidance, including
conducting in-person visits with newly-covered jurisdictions as well as
making presentations to state and local election officials through
national groups and associations.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Has Taken Recent Steps to
Provide Additional Guidance and Information to Jurisdictions on
Providing Bilingual Assistance:
The EAC has taken steps to provide guidance on bilingual voting
assistance as part of its responsibilities under HAVA to serve as a
national clearinghouse and resource for information with respect to the
administration of federal elections. For example, the EAC formed a
Language Accessibility Program that has taken steps to provide
recommendations and tools to election officials on providing bilingual
voting assistance. In April 2007, the EAC published English-to-Spanish
and Spanish-to-English versions of a glossary of over 1,800 election
terms and phrases used in the administration of elections. The glossary
was designed to assist state and local election officials in providing
translated election materials that are culturally and linguistically
appropriate. In addition, in September 2007, the EAC awarded a contract
to translate this glossary into five additional languages covered under
Section 203: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, with
an anticipated glossary publication date of May 2008. The EAC also
issued two guidebooks on recruiting and training poll workers that
included suggestions on serving the needs of language minority voters.
For example, one of the guidebooks included a section on partnering
with civic organizations to recruit bilingual poll workers, and the
other guidebook included a chapter on recruiting bilingual college
students to serve as poll workers.
In addition to its completed publications, the EAC has other assistance
efforts planned in response to recent concerns voiced by election
officials to the EAC regarding the need for additional guidance and
information on providing bilingual assistance. For example, the EAC
plans to dedicate a future chapter of its set of Election Management
Guidelines to the topic of language accessibility. EAC officials
reported that this language accessibility chapter (and accompanying
brochure) will address strategies for election officials to consider
and implement when providing elections services to voters with limited
English proficiency throughout the election process. The EAC plans to
develop this guidance by consulting election officials and
professionals with first-hand experience managing elections in order to
identify and develop the key content the publications should address.
EAC officials noted that this process should begin in April 2008, and
final publications should be released to the public by the end of that
year. After its initial set of Election Management Guidelines has been
completed, the EAC plans to regularly assess the need to cover other
topic areas and update previous materials to maintain current and
relevant information in the guidelines.
Some Forms of Bilingual Voting Assistance Were Perceived as More Useful
than Others, but Formally Evaluating Its Usefulness Presented Many
Challenges:
Although we identified little data measuring the usefulness of various
types of bilingual voting assistance, election officials in eight
jurisdictions and CBO representatives in seven jurisdictions in our
study told us that they believed certain forms of assistance were more
useful than others. In addition, none of the jurisdictions had formally
evaluated the effectiveness of their bilingual voting assistance
programs, although most had used some means of gathering information
about elements of the assistance provided. Election officials in 10
jurisdictions and CBO representatives in 9 jurisdictions also stated
that modifications could be made that would improve the usefulness of
the bilingual services provided to voters. While the use of formal
program evaluation tools has proven to be a successful means for
federal agencies to improve program effectiveness, accountability, and
service delivery,[Footnote 22] conducting formal evaluations of the
usefulness and effect of bilingual voting assistance is difficult for a
variety of reasons. Three key difficulties include (1) identifying the
objectives and appropriate indicators of success, (2) determining how
to measure these indicators once they have been identified, and (3)
isolating the effects of bilingual voting assistance efforts on
language minority voters from more general voter outreach efforts or
other influences on election processes.
Certain Types of Assistance Were Viewed as More Useful than Others:
Although the election jurisdictions and CBOs we met with had not
conducted any formal evaluations of the bilingual assistance they
provided, the majority of both believed that the assistance that the
election offices provided was useful to language minority voters.
Specifically, election officials we met with in 12 of 14 jurisdictions
and leaders of CBOs in 10 of 11 jurisdictions believed that the
bilingual voting assistance provided by the election offices was useful
to language minority voters and helped improve their participation in
the voting process. However, some types of bilingual assistance were
viewed as more useful than others. (See table 7 for the types of
bilingual voting assistance identified as most useful.)
Table 7: Most Useful Types of Bilingual Voting Assistance, as Reported
by Election Officials and CBO Representatives:
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Bilingual poll workers;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 6;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 5.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Translated voting materials (i.e., voter guides, registration forms,
sample ballots, ballots);
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 4;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 6.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Community outreach and education activities;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 2;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 3.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Media in-language (i.e., newspapers, tv, radio, mailings);
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 2;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 2.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Web site;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 2;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 0.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Translated polling place signage;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 1;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 0.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
All forms of bilingual assistance;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 1;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 0.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Designated bilingual coordinator;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 0;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 3.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Use of community advisory committees;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 0;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 2.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Voting machines bilingual ballots;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 0;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 2.
Type of bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office:
Phone assistance to intermediaries on behalf of language minority
voters;
Number of jurisdictions in which election officials viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 0;
Number of jurisdictions in which CBO representatives viewed this as the
most useful type of assistance: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials and CBO
representatives.
Note: Officials may have designated more than one type of assistance as
most useful. Election officials and CBO representatives may be in the
same jurisdiction.
[End of table]
Both election officials and CBO representatives generally agreed that
having bilingual poll workers available on Election Day was among the
most useful forms of assistance to voters. As noted above, election
officials and CBO representatives in some jurisdictions also believed
that having translated written materials was among the most useful
forms of assistance. For example, a CBO representative in Harris
County, Tex., told us that having bilingual voting guides, sample
ballots, and other election materials was more useful to voters than
having bilingual poll workers available on Election Day. He explained
that members of the community preferred to have translated written
materials that they could study in their homes and discuss with family
members prior to the election rather than waiting to get assistance
from bilingual poll workers on Election Day.
In limited instances, bilingual voting assistance was not viewed as
useful. In two jurisdictions, the limited use of the bilingual voting
assistance by voters led election officials to question its usefulness.
For example, officials with the Harris County, Tex., tax assessor's
office (which is responsible for voter registration in the county)
provided us with some data that indicated a low usage of translated
voter registration applications. During calendar year 2006 and through
June 2007, the office distributed roughly 97,000 voter registration
applications in Vietnamese and roughly 173,000 in Spanish by placing
them at branches of the tax assessor's office, public libraries, and
Texas Department of Public Safety locations, as well as distributing
them during community outreach events. However, the office received
back only 2 of the Vietnamese and 309 of the Spanish registration
applications. While the officials did not speculate as to the reasons
for the low usage of the translated forms, they noted that since they
are required to provide the forms in both languages they would continue
doing so. CBO representatives in two jurisdictions also told us that
they did not believe that the bilingual voting assistance provided by
the election offices was always useful. For example, a CBO
representative in Jackson County, S. Dak., noted that bilingual voting
assistance was not needed because about 95 percent of people in the
covered language group can read and understand English. This opinion
was also similar to that of a group of senior citizen Filipino voters
we met with through a CBO in Los Angeles County, Calif. These voters
had mixed views on the usefulness of the bilingual voting assistance
they received. Some of these voters indicated that the quality of the
translated ballots was poor; therefore, they instead voted using the
English version of the ballots. However, these voters also noted that
Filipinos generally know how to read and speak English; thus, the
assistance was not necessary. Yet, these voters also wanted the same
benefits (i.e., translated election materials) provided to them that
other language minority groups received under Section 203.
Election officials and CBO representatives in some jurisdictions stated
that modifications could be made that would improve the usefulness of
the bilingual assistance currently provided to language minority
voters. For example, election officials in four jurisdictions and CBO
representatives in nine jurisdictions believed that the usefulness of
bilingual voting assistance provided by the election office could be
improved through additional community outreach and education efforts.
Election officials in five jurisdictions and CBO representatives in six
jurisdictions noted that improvements in the translation of bilingual
voting materials would improve their usefulness to language minority
voters. Finally, election officials in three jurisdictions and CBO
representatives in seven jurisdictions believed that improvements in
the recruiting and training of bilingual poll workers would improve the
usefulness of bilingual voting assistance. (See table 8 for a list of
specific suggestions from election officials and CBO representatives
for improving the usefulness of bilingual voting assistance.)
Table 8: Suggestions on How Election Offices Can Improve the Usefulness
of Bilingual Voting Assistance, according to Election Officials and CBO
Representatives:
Community outreach and education:
* Following-up on community outreach events to determine their impact
(i.e., whether new voters registered);
* Seeking additional members of the language community for
participation in advisory committees;
* Having community leaders volunteer to work in election offices to
better understand the election process;
* Surveying or otherwise soliciting feedback from language minority
voters about the bilingual assistance they received;
* Placing more public service announcements about the election process
in language media (i.e., radio, tv, or newspapers);
* Hiring more permanent bilingual staff;
* Issuing bilingual voting guides;
* Providing financial assistance to CBOs so that they could provide
additional bilingual voting assistance;
* Using high-profile spokespeople to raise awareness of the importance
of voting among language minority voters;
* Having dedicated phone lines, answered in- language, to provide
assistance or information about voting to language minority voters.
Translating election materials:
* Ensuring that all materials are translated;
* Placing additional translated materials on election office Web sites;
* Using bilingual ballots versus separate translated ballots;
* Translating candidate debates and forums as well as materials into
the covered language;
* Asking members of the language minority community to proofread
translations;
* Providing audio ballots in the covered language;
* Tracking voter language preferences (via registration forms) to
provide mailings in the preferred language;
* Using standardized translated terms;
* Working with the language minority community to identify specific
dialects of a language that are needed, if any.
Recruiting, training, and placing bilingual poll workers:
Community outreach and education: * Hiring additional bilingual poll
workers;
* Ensuring bilingual poll workers are placed at the polling places that
need them;
* Improving poll worker training to emphasize bilingual assistance as a
regular part of doing business;
* Reducing bilingual poll worker training class size to allow more in-
depth discussions;
* Increasing oversight of bilingual poll workers to ensure they are
actually providing assistance;
* Having bilingual poll workers wear name tags--in the relevant
language--to identify the language they speak;
* Asking CBOs to assist with conducting poll worker training;
* Recruiting bilingual poll workers from the business community;
* Using bilingual city employees as poll workers;
* Increasing poll worker pay.
Source: GAO analysis of responses from election officials and CBO
representatives.
[End of table]
Some Election Officials and Community-Based Organization
Representatives Attempted to Measure Aspects of Bilingual Assistance:
None of the jurisdictions we included in our study had formally
evaluated the effectiveness of their bilingual voting assistance
programs, although most had used some means of gathering information
about the assistance provided.[Footnote 23] Election officials in two
jurisdictions told us that formal evaluations of their bilingual voting
assistance programs were unnecessary, since even if they discovered
that voters had not used the assistance or did not find it useful, the
jurisdictions were still required to provide it. Further, officials in
one of these jurisdictions said it is inappropriate for the
jurisdiction to conduct such a study because of the risk of perceived
political motivations to do away with bilingual voting assistance, as
well as the potential for legal action if the evaluation results were
used to try to justify not providing bilingual voting assistance.
Election officials in 12 of the 14 jurisdictions reported they used
various informal means to get information about the effectiveness of
certain aspects of their bilingual voting assistance programs. For
example, election officials in six jurisdictions told us they used
feedback from voters, community groups, advisory committees, phone
calls to a language telephone hotline, and other public contacts to
determine if the bilingual assistance was useful and whether any
modifications were needed. Election officials in one jurisdiction said
their CBO partners were their "eyes and ears"--providing significant
input if the bilingual voting assistance they provided was not
effective or needed improvement. These officials commented that they
believed obtaining feedback from CBOs was the best way to know how they
were doing, and told us that DOJ had acknowledged that using CBOs for
feedback is a good idea. Election officials in another jurisdiction
reported that they reviewed Election Day call-center logs to determine
whether voters or others had reported any problems related to bilingual
voting assistance, and that if any problems were identified the
jurisdiction worked to address them. Election officials in four
jurisdictions reported they had conducted post-election surveys of or
obtained comments from poll workers, either to determine the number of
voters who had used bilingual assistance at the polls on Election Day
or to obtain feedback about election judges' and poll workers'
experiences concerning the assistance provided. Finally, election
officials in two jurisdictions noted that they reviewed changes in the
numbers of language minority voters voting or requesting non-English
ballots to gauge the effectiveness of their efforts.
Representatives from CBOs in three jurisdictions reported that their
organizations had conducted some type of evaluation of the bilingual
assistance provided by their election jurisdiction in the November 2006
general election or had collected other information about the bilingual
voting assistance provided in their jurisdictions. For example,
representatives of a CBO in one jurisdiction told us they had conducted
exit polling with all voters, not just language minority voters, in the
November 2006 general election. Leaders from CBOs in another
jurisdiction reported conducting focus groups with county leaders,
voters, and callers to a phone bank regarding the usefulness of the
bilingual voting assistance provided in their jurisdiction. In
addition, representatives of a CBO that was involved in two
jurisdictions noted that their organization collected data on Election
Day regarding the presence and activity of bilingual poll workers and
the display of translated voting materials in polling places.
Representatives with one CBO told us their method of evaluation relied
on informal feedback from community members.
Conducting Formal Evaluations of the Usefulness and Effect of Bilingual
Voting Assistance Is Difficult:
While formal program evaluation tools have proven to be successful
means for federal agencies to improve program effectiveness,
accountability, and service delivery, election offices face many
difficult issues in evaluating the effectiveness, or outcomes, of the
bilingual voting assistance they provide.[Footnote 24] Among these,
three key issues are (1) identifying the objectives of the bilingual
voting assistance program and criteria for achieving these objectives,
(2) determining how to measure these criteria once they have been
identified, and (3) isolating the effects of the bilingual assistance
from other influences on language minority voters when they vote. (See
app. V for a discussion of additional challenges to evaluating the
usefulness of bilingual voting assistance.)
* Identifying the objectives and criteria: The identification of
appropriate objectives and criteria for achieving them is basic to any
evaluation of effectiveness, as an effective program must move toward
the achievement of an identified purpose. Examples of objectives for
bilingual assistance could be (1) increased language minority voter
turnout, (2) increased independence demonstrated by language minority
voters when voting, and (3) language minority voters who are better
informed when casting their ballots.
* Determining how the objectives and criteria will be measured: Once
objectives and criteria have been established, it is then necessary to
determine how they will be measured. For a number of reasons, measuring
the effectiveness of bilingual voting assistance is difficult. For
example, to measure the effectiveness of bilingual voting assistance on
language minority voter turnout, if a jurisdiction keeps records on
which voters have indicated needing bilingual assistance, poll books
can be checked to see whether these voters have voted and the numbers
of such voters can be tracked across elections. However, officials in
one jurisdiction told us that state law prohibited them from indicating
either a person's race or their primary language in their voter
registration records. Additionally, a jurisdiction could track the
number of ballots printed in a covered language that had been used by
voters. However, the number of ballots would not be a useful measure if
both English as well as the covered language are printed on the same
ballot. Measuring other potential indicators could be even more
difficult. For example, one objective of bilingual voting assistance
could be to enable language minority voters to cast their ballots
independently--for example, without the need for someone to accompany
them into the polling booth to provide language assistance. However,
without information on the number and percentage of voters who needed
assistance to cast their ballot prior to the implementation of
bilingual voting assistance, jurisdictions could not measure the effect
of the assistance on this indicator accurately.
* Isolating the effects from other influences: Isolating the effects of
bilingual assistance on voter behavior would be extremely difficult
because a number of factors influence voter behavior--such as age,
party affiliation, or social organizations to which voters belong. For
example, turnout among Hispanic voters could increase in the first
election following the implementation of bilingual assistance. This
same election could feature one or more Hispanic candidates on the
ballot or one of the candidates could have taken a position deemed as
"anti-immigrant." It could be difficult to determine the contribution
of each of these factors to the increased Hispanic voter turnout.
The two general approaches that are often used to help isolate the
effects, or impact, of a program would be difficult to use in
evaluating bilingual voting assistance. The first approach involves
having baseline data--data from the period before a program is
implemented--along with data collected from the period after a program
is implemented and comparing the two periods to determine whether there
are differences in the indicators being measured. However, this
approach could be very difficult, if not impossible, to use because
jurisdictions might not have collected the relevant data from previous
elections. Also, as mentioned earlier, unless there is some ability to
determine the contribution of other factors that might influence voter
behavior, it could be difficult to determine the specific effect
bilingual assistance has had.
The second approach is to have a comparison or control group and
involves collecting data from a separate group of individuals who do
not participate in the program but have characteristics similar to
those who do participate in the program to determine whether there are
any differences between these groups on the indicators being measured.
With bilingual voting assistance, this would mean collecting data on
groups of language minority voters who do not receive any bilingual
assistance, and comparing the results to data collected from language
minority voters who received the assistance. However, it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to keep a control group of language
minority voters from hearing or seeing pre-election bilingual
assistance provided through the media. Further, unless conducted in a
simulated way, such as in a mock election, a jurisdiction covered under
Section 203 seeking to use such a methodology with respect to language
minority voters would appear to face the additional challenge of
meeting the Section 203 requirements as well as complying with other
applicable federal and state voting rights protections.
Concluding Observations:
Most election officials we met with supported providing bilingual
voting assistance and took actions to implement this assistance in
their respective jurisdictions; however, many of them also expressed
uncertainty on how best to assess and meet the needs of language
minority voters. DOJ provides guidance on bilingual assistance under
Section 203, and it is intentionally flexible in nature to allow
covered election jurisdictions to tailor their bilingual voting
assistance programs to the specific needs and resources of their
communities. At the same time, this flexibility has led to uncertainty
among election officials as to whether their bilingual programs are
actually meeting requirements or the needs of language minority voters.
Moreover, although we have noted in prior work that federal agencies
have successfully used formal program evaluation tools to improve
federal program effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery,
the methodological difficulties election officials and others would
likely face in trying to formally assess the effectiveness of their
bilingual assistance programs for language minority voters make formal
evaluations of these programs very difficult. As a result, the extent
to which bilingual voting assistance programs are meeting the needs of
language minority voters is unknown.
However, the difficulty in conducting formal evaluations does not mean
that election jurisdictions would not benefit from additional feedback
or information about their own or other jurisdictions' bilingual voting
assistance programs. The EAC's recent efforts to develop and provide
guidance to election jurisdictions regarding the translation of
election terminology and recruiting bilingual poll workers address two
of the challenges we identified in this report. Similarly, the EAC's
planned development of additional management guidelines for election
officials on how to provide bilingual voting assistance might also help
jurisdictions in providing this type of assistance. However, because
the specific content of these management guidelines has yet to be
determined, whether they will provide election officials with the
information they seek is unknown. Nonetheless, while these guidelines
may not provide election officials with feedback about their specific
language assistance programs, making such information available from a
central, easily accessible source could help jurisdictions address
challenges they face in determining how to provide bilingual voting
assistance that will be useful to the language minorities in their
communities. Finally, although it is difficult to evaluate the effect
of bilingual assistance, in the absence of better data on the extent to
which the assistance is both used and helpful to voters with limited-
English proficiency, there is likely to continue to be debate about the
merits of bilingual voting assistance.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for review and
comment. DOJ did not provide comments on the draft of this report but
did provide technical edits, which we incorporated where appropriate.
The EAC provided written comments on December 21, 2007, which are
presented in appendix VI. The EAC presented additional details on its
efforts to provide election officials and the public with information
on bilingual voting assistance.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Attorney General, the Commissioners of the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission, and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Please contact William Jenkins at
202-512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VII.
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert Bennett:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar S. Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Robert A. Brady:
Chairman:
The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers:
Ranking Member:
Committee on House Administration:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This review examined the provision of bilingual voting assistance by
selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act. Specifically, our objectives were to provide information on:
* the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance as of the
November 2006 general election, and the challenges they reportedly
faced in providing such assistance; and:
* the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance, and the
extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of
such assistance to language minority voters.
For both objectives, we conducted site visits or obtained information
electronically from 14 selected jurisdictions covered by Section 203.
However, before opting for this approach, we considered other options:
(1) a survey of all 296 covered Section 203 jurisdictions along with a
probability sample of all local government jurisdictions, including
cities, towns, school districts and relevant special districts,
contained within these covered jurisdictions that conduct their own
local elections; and (2) a survey of only the 296 jurisdictions listed
in the Federal Register, an option similar to the methodology we used
in our 1997 report.
We chose to focus on the efforts of selected jurisdictions and not to
survey all jurisdictions for several reasons. First, while we had a
list of the 296 jurisdictions covered by Section 203, we were unable to
locate an inventory of the complete population of the sub-jurisdictions
contained within these jurisdictions that conducted their own elections
from either the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Census Bureau. The
Chief of the Census Bureau office that prepares the determinations for
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act told us that it might be possible
to develop an inventory of all sub-jurisdictions contained within the
296 covered jurisdictions through a complicated merge of Census'
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)
system data files with its Census of Local Government data files.
However, she said the Census of Local Government data do not indicate
whether local governments hold elections or, if they do, who
administers the elections. Therefore, to identify sub-jurisdictions
that conduct their own elections and contacts within these entities, we
would have needed to either canvass election officials in all 296
counties or other covered areas, as well as state elections officers,
or construct a population of all sub-jurisdictions from Census Bureau
data and then select a probability sample of sub-jurisdictions to
survey and develop our own contact information. We believed this
approach would have been very difficult, costly, and time consuming. In
addition, we learned that prior to testimony given at the summer 2006
hearings for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, a team of
researchers at the University of Arizona had already surveyed all 296
jurisdictions listed in the Federal Register, in addition to hundreds
of other jurisdictions, about similar issues.[Footnote 25] We were
reluctant to resurvey jurisdictions about related matters so soon
thereafter.
For our chosen methodology, we selected a sample of 14 covered
jurisdictions in 12 states. We selected these jurisdictions because
they reflected a variety of characteristics, such as size (i.e., voting
age population), geographic diversity, varying language minority groups
and their size relative to the voting age population, early voting
provisions, and the longevity of each jurisdiction's coverage under the
Section 203 bilingual voting provisions; and, we wanted a diverse group
of sites to allow us to report on a wide range of jurisdictions'
experiences with providing bilingual voting assistance. (See table 9
for a listing of the jurisdictions included in our study and the
criteria used to select them.) Because we selected a nongeneralizable
sample of election jurisdictions, the experiences and views discussed
in this report cannot be generalized to all 296 jurisdictions required
to provide bilingual voting assistance under Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act or to the community-based organizations (CBO) in these
jurisdictions.
Table 9: Jurisdictions Selected for GAO Site Visits and the Related
Information Used to Make the Selections:
Election jurisdiction: Boston (Suffolk County), MA;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish-heritage;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic;
Census region: Northeast.
Election jurisdiction: Cook County, IL;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish-heritage, Asian American;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic, Chinese;
Census region: Midwest.
Election jurisdiction: Harris County, TX;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage, Asian American;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic, Vietnamese;
Census region: South.
Election jurisdiction: Jackson County, SD;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
Yes;
Current covered language group(s): American Indian;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Sioux;
Census region: Midwest.
Election jurisdiction: King County, WA;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
Yes;
Current covered language group(s): Asian American;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Chinese;
Census region: West.
Election jurisdiction: Los Angeles County, CA;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage, Asian American;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic, Chinese, Filipino,
Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese;
Census region: West.
Election jurisdiction: Miami-Dade County, FL;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic;
Census region: South.
Election jurisdiction: Montgomery County, MD;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
Yes;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic;
Census region: South.
Election jurisdiction: Orange County, CA;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage, Asian American;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic, Chinese, Korean,
Vietnamese;
Census region: West.
Election jurisdiction: Kenai Peninsula Borough, AK;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Alaskan Native, American Indian;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Aleut, American Indian;
Census region: West.
Election jurisdiction: Sandoval County, NM;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): American Indian;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Navajo, Pueblo;
Census region: West.
Election jurisdiction: Seward County, KS;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
Yes;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic;
Census region: Midwest.
Election jurisdiction: Starr County, TX;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic;
Census region: South.
Election jurisdiction: Suffolk County, NY;
Jurisdiction covered under Sec. 203 in year 2000 for the first time?:
No;
Current covered language group(s): Spanish- heritage;
Current language minority subgroup(s): Hispanic;
Census region: Northeast.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 388,580;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 11,820;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 3.0;
Subject of DOJ action?: Yes;
Uses early voting?: No;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 3,429,235;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 143,175;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 4.2;
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 1,964,970;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 124,885;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 6.4;
Subject of DOJ action?: Yes;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 655[A];
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 25[A];
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 3.8[A];
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: No;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: No.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 1,220,300;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 10,535;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 0.9;
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 4,992,965;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 644,505;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 12.9;
Subject of DOJ action?: Yes[B];
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 1,164,345;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 273,975;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 23.5;
Subject of DOJ action?: Yes;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 539,745;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 10,055;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 1.9;
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: No;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: No.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 1,631,415;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 137,160;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 8.4;
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: [A];
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: [A];
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: [A];
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: No.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 6,670;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 2,525;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 37.9;
Subject of DOJ action?: Yes;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 11,715;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 1,160;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 9.9;
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: Yes.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 22,600;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 10,050;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 44.5;
Subject of DOJ action?: No;
Uses early voting?: Yes;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: No.
Jurisdiction citizen voting age population in 2000: 978,075;
Covered language group(s) voting age limited-English proficient
population in 2000: 16,685;
Percent limited-English proficient in 2000: 1.7;
Subject of DOJ action?: Yes;
Uses early voting?: No;
Recommended by advocacy groups for study?: No.
Source: GAO analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, DOJ, local/state
officials, and national advocacy groups.
[A] For jurisdictions covered because of the American Indian
Reservation approach, population data are provided on citizens who are
American Indians or Alaska Natives in the part of the jurisdiction that
is contained within the Indian Reservation. A discussion of these
criteria is provided in appendix II.
[B] The DOJ actions involved subjurisdictions within Los Angeles
County, not the county itself.
[C] Population data were not provided by the Census Bureau when the
total number of voting age citizens is less than 50.
[End of table]
Generally, we obtained information from the single office responsible
for conducting elections in each of these jurisdictions. However, in
two jurisdictions--Cook County, Ill., and Harris County, Tex.--we met
with officials in two separate offices because each office had separate
responsibilities for statewide and federal elections held in the
jurisdiction. In Cook County, the Chicago Board of Elections
Commissioners is responsible for administering these elections in the
portion of Cook County that is Chicago, and the Cook County Clerk is
responsible for administering elections in the remainder of Cook
County. In Harris County, the tax assessor/collector is responsible for
voter registration, and the County Clerk is responsible for the
remainder of election activities. Due to numerous scheduling conflicts,
we were unable to arrange a visit to Sandoval County, N. Mex; however,
we did obtain written responses to our questions from an election
official in Sandoval County via electronic means. In one jurisdiction-
-Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska--we interviewed not only a local
government official who has responsibility for local elections but also
state officials, as the state has responsibility for overseeing federal
and statewide elections in Alaska jurisdictions. Also, we selected 2
sub-jurisdictions among the 14 covered jurisdictions to learn about the
bilingual voting assistance these localities provided in local
elections. We identified these sub-jurisdictions by asking election
officials about what localities within their jurisdictions conducted
their own local elections. These localities were: Los Angeles City,
Calif., and Kadoka City, S. Dak.
In addition to obtaining information from election officials, we also
selected 38 CBOs that represent relevant language minority communities
in 11 of the 14 jurisdictions.[Footnote 26] We selected the CBOs
through inquiries with election officials, contacts with national level
advocacy groups to learn of local counterparts, contacts with the CBOs
themselves to learn of additional groups in their communities, and
Internet searches. In our discussions with representatives with a few
CBOs, we were able also to speak with a few language minority voters
(in one case with the help of an interpreter) who said they had used
the bilingual assistance provided by their jurisdiction.
We either conducted on-site interviews with or obtained information
electronically from election officials and CBO representatives
regarding the bilingual voting assistance provided in the November 2006
general election and any subsequent elections through June 2007. Using
a semi-structured interview guide, we obtained information from the
election offices about:
* office staff assigned to provide bilingual assistance;
* the office's strategy for identifying needs and providing bilingual
assistance;
* the type(s) and availability of bilingual assistance provided at
different stages of the election process for the November 2006 general
election and any subsequent elections, including voter education
efforts, voter registration, early voting and absentee voting,
recruiting and training poll workers, ballot design and voting systems,
Election Day activities, and the usefulness of this assistance to
voters; and:
* supporting documentation as evidence of the types of bilingual voting
assistance (e.g., sample ballots, pamphlets, voter education materials,
etc.) provided to language minority voters in these jurisdictions.
Using a semi-structured interview guide, we also obtained information
from CBO representatives about their roles in providing bilingual
voting assistance in the November 2006 general election and any
subsequent elections; their views about the bilingual assistance
provided by the election office in these elections; and the usefulness
of this assistance.
We also interviewed officials and obtained documents from other
relevant parties. Interviews and documents were obtained from the DOJ
Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for providing program
guidance and enforcing compliance with the requirements under Section
203 of the Voting Rights Act. We also interviewed officials from the
EAC, which was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to,
among other things, act as a clearinghouse and resource for information
and review of procedures with respect to the administration of federal
elections. Additionally, we interviewed the Chief of the Census Bureau
office that prepares the determinations for Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act. We reviewed pertinent federal laws, regulations, and agency
guidance pertaining to the bilingual voting provisions. We also
reviewed extensive prior GAO work, other national studies, reports, and
news articles; attended several national conferences; and interviewed
the secretary of state for one state with jurisdictions covered by
Section 203 to gain further insight regarding these issues. We
conducted this performance audit from October 2006 to January 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Section 203 Coverage Criteria Regarding Language Minority
Groups and Covered Jurisdictions:
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides specific criteria for
determining which states and jurisdictions are covered by the Section
203 language minority provisions. The Director of the Census Bureau has
responsibility for making the official determinations regarding which
political subdivisions are covered under section 203. To make its
determinations, the Census Bureau reevaluates the jurisdictions covered
by Section 203 every 10 years using new Census data as they become
available. [Footnote 27] The number of covered jurisdictions has risen
from 227 in 1975, the first year jurisdictions were required to comply
with Section 203,[Footnote 28] to 296 jurisdictions in 30 states in
2002, the year of the most recent determination.[Footnote 29] The
Census Bureau uses classifications--states, counties, minor civil
divisions, or tribal areas--and variables such as voter age, language
proficiency, and citizenship as self-reported on Census forms to
determine the jurisdictions to be covered under Section 203. The
following material in figure 1 describes the coverage criteria.
Figure 1: Section 203 Coverage Criteria for Implementation of the
Voting Rights Act Provisions Regarding Language Minority Groups:
This figure lists Section 203 coverage criteria for implementation of
the Voting Rights Act provisions regarding language minority groups.
§55.6 Coverage Under Section 203(c).
(a) Coverage formula. There are four ways in which a political
subdivision can become subject to section 203(c).[A]
(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 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).
[See PDF for image]
Source: 28 C.F.R. §55.6.
[A] The criteria for coverage are contained in Section 203(b).
[End of figure]
The Director of the Census Bureau applied these criteria to the data
obtained from the 2000 census (the most recent census) to determine
which jurisdictions are covered under Section 203. The Director of the
Census Bureau identifies the relevant language groups for the covered
jurisdictions. Because the Census Bureau data used to determine the
covered language are self-reported, the specific language an individual
speaks is not always identified and thus jurisdictions may not know the
specific language for which they are to provide assistance. For
example, an individual may identify their language as "Indian
language," but this does not clarify for the jurisdiction what specific
Indian language assistance it is to provide. Also, some Section 203
covered jurisdictions have more than one language group for which they
are required to provide voting assistance. (See table 10 for the list
of jurisdictions covered under Section 203 and the respective language
groups, as of July 2002.)
Table 10: Jurisdictions Covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Federal Register (67 Fed. Reg. 48,871-48,877 (2002) (codified
in appendix to 28 C.F.R. Part 55)).
Note: In the cases where a state is identified as covered, those
counties or county equivalents not displayed in the table are exempt
from the obligation.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: DOJ Actions under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act,
1980-2007:
Jurisdiction: County and City of San Francisco;
State: CA;
Date: 1980;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: San Juan County;
State: UT;
Date: 1984;
Type of action: Memorandum of agreement[A].
Jurisdiction: McKinley County;
State: NM;
Date: 1986;
Type of action: Consent decree[B].
Jurisdiction: State of Arizona;
State: AZ;
Date: 1989;
Type of action: Consent decree[C].
Jurisdiction: New Mexico and Sandoval County;
State: NM;
Date: 1990;
Type of action: Consent decree[D].
Jurisdiction: Dade (Metropolitan) County;
State: FL;
Date: 1993;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Cibola County;
State: NM;
Date: 1993;
Type of action: Stipulation and order[E].
Jurisdiction: Socorro County;
State: NM;
Date: 1993;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Alameda County;
State: CA;
Date: 1996;
Type of action: Settlement agreement and order.
Jurisdiction: San Juan County;
State: NM;
Date: 1996;
Type of action: Memorandum of agreement.
Jurisdiction: Bernalillo County;
State: NM;
Date: 1998;
Type of action: Consent decree[F].
Jurisdiction: City of Lawrence;
State: MA;
Date: 1999;
Type of action: Settlement agreement and order.
Jurisdiction: County and City of Passaic;
State: NJ;
Date: 1999;
Type of action: Consent decree[G].
Jurisdiction: Orange County;
State: FL;
Date: 2002;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Brentwood Union Free School District;
State: NY;
Date: 2003;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: San Benito County;
State: CA;
Date: 2004;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: San Diego County;
State: CA;
Date: 2004;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Ventura County;
State: CA;
Date: 2004;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Suffolk County;
State: NY;
Date: 2004;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Harris County;
State: TX;
Date: 2004;
Type of action: Memorandum of agreement.
Jurisdiction: Yakima County;
State: WA;
Date: 2004;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: City of Azusa;
State: CA;
Date: 2005;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: City of Paramount;
State: CA;
Date: 2005;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: City of Rosemead;
State: CA;
Date: 2005;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: City of Boston;
State: MA;
Date: 2005;
Type of action: Memorandum of agreement.
Jurisdiction: Westchester County;
State: NY;
Date: 2005;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Cochise County;
State: AZ;
Date: 2006;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Maricopa County;
State: AZ;
Date: 2006;
Type of action: Memorandum of agreement.
Jurisdiction: Broward County;
State: FL;
Date: 2006;
Type of action: Memorandum of agreement.
Jurisdiction: City of Springfield;
State: MA;
Date: 2006;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: City of Philadelphia;
State: PA;
Date: 2006;
Type of action: Complaint.
Jurisdiction: Hale County;
State: TX;
Date: 2006;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: Kane County;
State: IL;
Date: 2007;
Type of action: Consent decree.
Jurisdiction: City of Walnut;
State: CA;
Date: 2007;
Type of action: Complaint.
Jurisdiction: City of Earth;
State: TX;
Date: 2007;
Type of action: Complaint.
Jurisdiction: Seagraves Independent School District;
State: TX;
Date: 2007;
Type of action: Complaint.
Jurisdiction: Littlefield Independent School District;
State: TX;
Date: 2007;
Type of action: Complaint.
Jurisdiction: Post Independent School District;
State: TX;
Date: 2007;
Type of action: Complaint.
Jurisdiction: Smyer Independent School District;
State: TX;
Date: 2007;
Type of action: Complaint.
Source: DOJ officials.
[A] Consent decree was amended in 1990.
[B] Consent decree was amended in 1990.
[C] Consent decree amended in 1993.
[D] Consent decree modified in 1994 and again in 2004.
[E] Agreement was extended in 2004.
[F] Consent decree extended in 2003.
[G] Additional criteria set forth in supplemental consent decree in
2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Examples of Bilingual Voting Written Assistance Materials:
The following are excerpted examples of bilingual voting materials
provided by election officials in covered jurisdictions.
Figure 2: Excerpt of a Chinese Voter Registration Form - King County,
Wash.
This figure is a picture of a Chinese voter registration form from King
County, Washington.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: English/Chinese Bilingual Absentee Ballot Request Form - King
County, Wash.
This figure is a copy of the English and Chinese language absentee
ballot request from King County, Washington.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: English/Vietnamese Bilingual Sample Ballot - Boston, Mass.
This figure is a copy of the English and Vietnamese language sample
ballot from Boston, Massachusetts.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: English/Spanish Bilingual Official Ballot - Boston, Mass.
This figure is a copy of an English and Spanish language official
ballot from Boston, Massachusetts.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Spanish Voting Instructions - Los Angeles, Calif.
This figure is a copy of two pages of voting instructions written in
Spanish from Los Angeles, California.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Bilingual Polling Place Signs - King County, Wash.
This figure is a combination of two voting signs with the words written
in two languages from King County, Washington.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Bilingual Poll Worker Nametags and Buttons - Orange County,
Calif.
This figure are copies of nametags and buttons work by bilingual poll
workers in Orange County, California.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Multilingual Tally Card - Los Angeles, Calif.
This figure is a copy of a multilungial tally card from Los Angeles,
California.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Election officials.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Additional Challenges to Evaluating the Usefulness of
Bilingual Voting Assistance:
In addition to the three key issues discussed earlier in this report,
other difficult issues also face election offices in evaluating the
bilingual voting assistance they provide, including: (1) how to
appropriately sample, or select, polling places and language minority
voters to include in an evaluation; (2) the receptivity of language
minority voters to participation in a study; (3) having data collectors
who can speak fluently the specific language, and possibly dialect, of
language minority voters in a jurisdiction; (4) having the necessary
staff and technical expertise to conduct a methodologically sound
evaluation; and (5) the likely expense of an evaluation.
* Determining how to sample: When determining how to gather data from
the language minority voting population, a jurisdiction must decide
whether to conduct a census (collect data from everyone) or to select a
sample of the population from whom to get information. Depending on
various factors, including the numbers of precincts and the numbers of
voters in the jurisdiction, collecting information from all members of
a given population, such as all language minority voters could be very
costly, as well as logistically difficult to do in evaluating the
usefulness of bilingual voting assistance. Therefore, selecting a
probability or nonprobability sample can be a more cost-effective
alternative.[Footnote 30] For example, if a jurisdiction was unable to
collect data from all voters on Election Day, it could select a
probability sample of voters in an exit poll. To be able to generalize
the results to all language minority voters, such an exit poll would
need to be based on a probability sample of precincts in the
jurisdiction and voters voting within each selected precinct throughout
Election Day. Alternatively, jurisdictions could collect information
from language minority voters through methods such as comment cards
soliciting feedback about bilingual voting placed on tables in
precincts on Election Day, or they could log individuals' calls to a
telephone hotline to report voting problems. While useful information
could be obtained, there would be no guarantee that the voters who
completed the cards or called the hotline were statistically
representative of all voters who used the bilingual voting assistance.
As a result, a jurisdiction would need to be cautious about
interpreting the information obtained from this source because the
information could be biased.
* Identifying willing participants: It is necessary to have language
minority voters who are receptive to participation in an evaluation. In
some locations, language minority voters may be sensitive about their
English language skills, and consequently, there may be some
embarrassment about needing to use bilingual voting assistance or about
the extent to which the assistance is helpful. In these instances, it
may be difficult to get language minority voters to cooperate, or, if
they do cooperate, difficult to obtain accurate information about their
experiences in using the assistance provided.
* Obtaining data collectors with language skills: Any evaluation of
bilingual voting assistance must use individuals trained in data
collection methods. These individuals would also need to speak fluently
the specific language, and possibly dialect, spoken by language
minority voters in a jurisdiction in order to effectively communicate
with language minority voters asked to participate in a study.
* Having the necessary staff: Election offices face the difficult
issues of having the necessary staff and technical expertise to conduct
methodologically sound evaluations in evaluating the effectiveness of
the bilingual voting assistance provided. Since the purpose of election
offices is to conduct elections, it is unlikely that election offices
will have staff available who either have the time or professional
expertise to conduct an evaluation. Therefore, election offices would
likely need to seek outside professional assistance, such as through a
contract with a consultant, to do so.
* Having sufficient resources: Efforts to evaluate program
effectiveness can be expensive. Unless an election office received
special funding to evaluate its bilingual assistance program, it would
likely have to rely on existing operating budgets that may already be
limited. Officials in five jurisdictions said they had no money or
staff to evaluate the assistance they provided. The election
administrator in one jurisdiction stated that their top funding
priorities were for operational needs, not for conducting such a study.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission:
U.S. Election Assistance Commission:
Office Of The Executive Director:
1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100:
Washington, DC. 20005:
December 21, 2007:
Mr. William O. Jenkins, Jr.:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
RE: Comments regarding proposed GAO-08-182 Report:
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
The U.S. Election Assistance (EAC) is grateful for the opportunity to
comment on GAO's report, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected
Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing
Assistance submitted to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
on December 13, 2007. The EAC appreciates GAO's research into the area
of election language accessibility and plans to make use of the report
in planning future EAC studies and research activities. The EAC is
committed to providing election officials with resources that address
the needs of voters with limited English proficiency.
As noted in your report, the EAC supports State and local election
officials in the area of bilingual voting assistance through its
Language Accessibility Program (LAP), Election Management Guidelines
Program (EMG), and research activities under Section 241 of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). These programs have already produced
resources that are available to election officials and the public,
including:
* Glossary of Key Election Terminology [English/Spanish –
Spanish/English] - This glossary contains more than 1,800 terms and
phrases used in elections across the United States. The glossary
assists election officials in providing culturally and linguistically
appropriate translations to voters with limited English proficiency. It
also contains a Spanish to English section as a tool for voters seeking
to familiarize themselves with election terminology in English.
* Spanish version of the National Mail-In Voter Registration Form
prescribed by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
* Successful Practices for Poll Worker Recruitment, Training, and
Retention – This guidebook presents a variety of field-tested
techniques, which can be adapted by election jurisdictions of varying
sizes and demographics, to aid in recruitment, training, and management
of bilingual poll workers.
* A Guidebook for Recruiting College Poll Workers – The guidebook
includes a chapter on recruitment of minority and bilingual students to
serve as poll workers on Election Day.
* Effective Designs for the Administration of Federal Elections – This
report provides best practice samples for the design of ballots and
voter information materials, including best practices for developing
materials in multiple languages.
All of these publications and reports are available on the EAC's Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.eac.gov].
Additionally, the EAC is in the process of developing a number of new
tools for elections officials. These include:
* Translation of the Glossary of Key Election Terminology into Chinese,
Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese (expected May 2008).
* Translation of the National Voter Registration Form prescribed by
NVRA into Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.
* Development of the brochure A Voter's Guide to Federal Elections -
The goal of this publication is to inform voters about the Federal
election process, providing information concerning voter registration,
polling places, absentee ballots, provisional ballots, poll workers,
and similar topics. This brochure will be available initially in
English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese;
the EAC will also examine the feasibility of providing this information
in audio format to Native American and Alaska Native voters.
* Development of a chapter (and accompanying brochure) on language
accessibility in the EAC's Election Management Guidelines. The chapter
will seek to provide election officials recommendations for addressing
the particular challenges jurisdictions face in providing bilingual
assistance throughout voter registration and election activities,
including assistance to Native Americans and Alaska Natives.
These recent and upcoming activities are just the beginning of the
EAC's efforts to be the source for information on bilingual voting
assistance. The EAC will continue to seek feedback from election
officials, interest groups, Federal agencies, and the general public to
identify resources and materials the EAC may provide in this area.
GAO's final report will be an invaluable resource to election officials
as they strive to meet the needs of all voters. The EAC sincerely
appreciates the opportunity to provide information for this report. If
you need further information or have any questions regarding EAC's
language accessibility activities, please do not hesitate to contact us
at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Thomas R. Wilkey:
Executive Director:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
William O. Jenkins, Jr. (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Dawn E. Hoff, Assistant Director;
David Alexander, Assistant Director; Claudia K. Becker; Natalie Chaney;
Geoffrey Hamilton; Linda Miller; Hugh C. Paquette; Deena D. Richart;
and Clarence Tull, Sr., made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Elections: Further Testing Could Provide Increased but Not Absolute
Assurance That Voting Systems Did Not Cause Undervotes in Florida's
13th Congressional District. GAO-08-97T. Washington, D.C.: October 2,
2007.
Elections: Status of GAO's Review of Voting Equipment Used in Florida's
13th Congressional District. GAO-07-1167T. Washington, D.C.: August 3,
2007.
Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in
Electronic Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas
Citizens. GAO-07-774. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic
Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2007.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic
Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-576T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2007.
Elections: DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee Voters,
but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-1134T. Washington, D.C.: September 28,
2006.
Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in the
November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6,
2006.
Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens
Increased for 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-521.
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.
Election Reform: Nine States' Experiences Implementing Federal
Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists. GAO-
06-247. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2006.
Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter
Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997.
Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.
Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of
Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be
Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.
Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections
Officials Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478.
Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Department of Justice's Activities to Address Past Election-Related
Voting Irregularities. GAO-04-1041R. Washington, D.C.: September 14,
2004.
Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents
Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90.
Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges across the Nation.
GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Statistical Analysis of Factors That Affected Uncounted
Votes in the 2000 Presidential Election. GAO-02-122. Washington, D.C.:
October 15, 2001.
Elections: Status and Use of Federal Voting Equipment Standards. GAO-
02-52. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative
Voting Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should
Be Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Comparison of Voting Age Population to Registered Voters in the 40
Largest U.S. Counties. GAO-01-560R. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election
Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs. GAO/GGD-97-
81. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1997.
Puerto Rico: Confusion over Applicability of the Electoral Law to
Referendum Process. HRD-93-84. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 1993.
Voting: Some Procedural Changes and Informational Activities Could
Increase Turnout. PEMD-91-1. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 1990.
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Costs of and Use during the November 1984
General Election. GGD-86-134BR. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 1986.
Justice Can Further Improve Its Monitoring of Changes in State/Local
Voting Laws. GGD-84-9. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 1983.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] There are 296 jurisdictions required to provide bilingual
assistance under Section 203. For the specific criteria for determining
which jurisdictions are to be covered under Section 203, see appendix
II.
[2] Section 9 of Pub. L. No. 109-246, 120 Stat. 577 (2006).
[3] Dr. James Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, "Minority Language
Assistance Practices in Public Elections" (Arizona State University:
Mar. 7, 2006).
[4] For purposes of this report, CBO is defined as community leaders,
educators, business groups, labor groups, parent-teacher organizations,
senior citizen groups, church groups, social and fraternal
organizations, veterans groups, and others who are knowledgeable about
bilingual voting issues affecting the relevant language minority
community.
[5] A nongeneralizable, or nonprobability, sample is when
nonstatistical judgment is used to select members of the sample,
usually using specific characteristics of the population as criteria.
Results from a nongeneralizable sample cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because in a nongeneralizable sample
some elements of the population being studied have no chance or an
unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[6] See related GAO products at the end of this report for a list of
our prior work.
[7] Pub. L. No 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
§§1973 to 1973bb-1).
[8] Another language provision is contained in Section 4(f)(4) of the
Voting Rights Act but is not included in the scope of this report. Both
of these provisions require covered jurisdictions to provide certain
voting materials and assistance in the language of the applicable
minority group but Section 4(f)(4) requires covered jurisdictions to
submit specified types of proposed election law changes to the
Department of Justice for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. The formulas that trigger coverage are distinct for the two
provisions. DOJ took actions under Section 4(f)(4) against Ector
County, R.I. (2005), Brazos County, Tex. (2006), and Galveston County,
Tex. (2007).
[9] 28 C.F.R. Part 55.
[10] GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected
in the November 2004 General Election, GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.:
June 6, 2006).
[11] There are 296 covered jurisdictions listed in the Federal
Register, but the exact number of elections offices tasked with
providing bilingual voting assistance is much higher. We do not know
this exact number because for each of the 296 covered jurisdictions,
there may be many covered sub-jurisdictions such as cities or utility
districts that are required to comply with Section 203 for any of the
elections they administer.
[12] Provisional voting is the use of provisional ballots (subject to
later verification of registration) in elections in certain
circumstances where a voter's eligibility is unclear.
[13] GAO, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Costs of and Use during the
November 1984 General Election, GAO/GGD-86-134BR (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 15, 1986).
[14] GAO, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs,
GAO/GGD-97-81 (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1997).
[15] Our prior efforts to determine the costs associated with providing
bilingual voting assistance revealed that because jurisdictions and
states are not required to maintain such cost data, information
available on their costs was scant.
[16] GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected
in the November 2004 General Election, GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.:
June 6, 2006).
[17] Dr. James Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, "Minority Language
Assistance Practices in Public Elections" (Arizona State University:
Mar. 7, 2006).
[18] The one election jurisdiction included in our study where election
officials did not report actively providing any bilingual voting
assistance is the Kenai Peninsula Borough in Alaska. The Kenai
Peninsula Borough Clerk is responsible for the administration of local
elections whereas the State of Alaska, Division of Elections, is
responsible for the administration of statewide and federal elections.
A local Kenai Peninsula Borough election official reported that while
they were aware that the Kenai Peninsula Borough was covered under
Section 203, they maintained that bilingual voting assistance wasn't
needed and provided documentation that one Native Alaskan community
declined the assistance. In addition, state election officials in one
region, who are responsible for the administration of statewide and
federal elections in Kenai Peninsula Borough such as the November 2006
election, did not report making any special arrangements to provide
bilingual voting assistance in this particular area of the state.
However, we learned that local poll workers in at least two targeted
communities took the initiative to provide bilingual voting assistance
to those who sought it for this election. Senior officials with
Alaska's Division of Elections reported that they were, at the time of
the 2006 election, unaware that Kenai Peninsula Borough was covered
under Section 203. These officials also told us that they are in the
process of reviewing their bilingual voting assistance program.
[19] All 14 of the election offices we contacted reported offering
eligible voters an absentee voting option and 9 of the 14 election
offices reported offering an early voting option.
[20] "Targeting" refers to a system in which the minority language
materials or assistance are provided to fewer than all persons or
registered voters. It is the view of the U.S. Attorney General that a
targeting system will normally fulfill the minority language
requirements if it is designed and implemented in such a way that
language minority group members who need minority language materials
and assistance receive them.
[21] Aleut is one branch of the Eskimo-Aleut language family and has
multiple dialects.
[22] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[23] By formal evaluation, we mean a systematic examination of the
extent to which the provided bilingual voting assistance successfully
achieved its intended purpose(s).
[24] Evaluations of effectiveness, or outcomes, can be distinguished
from process or implementation evaluations, which are designed to
assess the extent to which a program is operating as intended. As we
have stated before, effectiveness evaluations are difficult to design
and execute because optimal conditions for the scientific study of
complex social programs almost never exist. Attributing results to a
particular intervention can be difficult when such programs are
evaluated in real world settings that pose numerous methodological
challenges.
[25] Dr. James Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, "Minority Language
Assistance Practices in Public Elections" (Arizona State University:
Mar. 7, 2006).
[26] After repeated attempts, we were unable to make contact with any
CBOs in Sandoval County, N. Mex., and Suffolk County, N.Y.
Additionally, we were unable to locate any CBOs in Starr County, Tex.
[27] The long form census, which had been used in coverage
determinations, will no longer be used by the Census Bureau after 2010.
The American Community Survey has replaced the long form and will be
administered by the Census Bureau annually. As a result, future
determinations for coverage under Section 203 will be made by the
Director of the Census based upon information compiled by the ACS on a
rolling 5-year average.
[28] 40 Fed. Reg. 41827 (1975). In addition to the 227 jurisdictions
identified in the 1975 determinations, the state of Alaska was also
listed as having statewide coverage for Native Alaskans but with no
specific jurisdictions identified as being covered.
[29] 67 Fed. Reg. 48,872 (2002).
[30] A probability sample, sometimes referred to as a statistical or
random sample, is a sample in which each member in the population has a
known chance, or probability, of being selected. If the objective of an
evaluation is to make generalizations or draw conclusions about an
entire population, without using a census, a probability sample could
be used to do this. In a nonprobability sample, members in the
population have no chance, or an unknown chance, of being selected. The
major limitation of nonprobability samples is that the results cannot
be used to make inferences, or generalizations, about a population.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
