GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 14, 2004 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Department of Justice’s Activities to Address Past Election-Related Voting 

Irregularities

Election-day problems in Florida and elsewhere in November 2000 raised concerns 

about voting systems that included, among other things, alleged voting irregularities 

that may have affected voter access to the polls. The term voting irregularities 

generally refers to a broad array of complaints relating to voting and/or elections that 

may involve violations of federal voting rights and/or federal criminal law for which 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) has enforcement responsibilities. 

You requested that we review activities at DOJ to help ensure voter access to the 

polls and actions to address allegations of voting irregularities. This report 

(1) identifies and describes changes DOJ has made since November 2000 to help 

ensure voter access to the polls; (2) identifies and describes actions that the Voting 

Section in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has taken to track, address, and assess 

allegations of election-related1

 voting irregularities received between November 2000 

and December 2003; and (3) assesses the Voting Section’s internal control2

 activities 

 

1

Election-related refers to a preliminary investigation, matter, or case that the Voting Section initiated based on allegations about 

a specific election. A matter is an activity that has been assigned an identification number but has not resulted in a court filing of 

a complaint, indictment, or information. A case is an activity that has been assigned the same identification number that it had as 

a matter and has resulted in the court filing of a complaint, indictment, or information.

2

Internal controls are integral components of an organization’s management that provide reasonable assurances of objectives 

that include, among other things, efficient operations. They comprise the plans, methods, and procedures used to meet missions,

goals, and objectives and, in doing so, support performance-based management. For additional information on internal controls, 

see GAO Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, 

D.C.:November 1, 1999).
Page 2 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

to help ensure relevant, accurate, and reliable recording and documentation of 

allegations of voting irregularities to accurately track actions taken in response to 

allegations and provide accurate and complete information to the public and 

congressional committees. 

We primarily performed our work at DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Voting Section. We 

obtained relevant documentation and interviewed responsible officials regarding 

DOJ’s activities to help ensure voter access to the polls. To identify and describe 

changes made since November 2000, we reviewed documentation on DOJ’s efforts to 

monitor and observe elections, increase emphasis on enforcement of minority 

language and overseas voters’ rights, disseminate election-related guidance, and 

increase its resources to address voting issues. To identify and describe actions that 

the Voting Section took to track, address, and assess allegations of voting 

irregularities, we reviewed telephone logs and 34 files with information on a 

preliminary investigation, matters, and cases that the Voting Section considered to be 

election-related voting irregularities initiated from November 2000 to December 2003. 

To assess the Voting Section’s internal controls, we obtained available documentation 

of policies, procedures, and techniques the Voting Section has to manage allegations 

of voting irregularities and considered them in relation to GAO’s internal control 

standards. We also interviewed officials and obtained documentation from DOJ’s 

Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section (PIN), in relation to the coordination 

between the Voting Section and PIN to address voter access to the polls. 

On August 31, 2004, we provided your staffs a briefing document on the results of our 

work. Enclosure I contains the materials we presented at that time. Our audit work 

was performed in Washington, D.C., from May 2003 through August 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Background 

The Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division is charged with the responsibility of 

enforcing federal voting rights statutes that are designed to safeguard the right to 

vote of racial and language minorities; disabled, elderly, and illiterate persons; and 

military and overseas voters, among others. The Voting Section is also charged with 

the responsibility of enforcing federal statutes that, among other things, address 

issues such as voter registration, provisional voting, and voter information. 

Provisional voting permits eligible persons to vote on election day if their names are 

not on voter registration lists, with the understanding that each person’s eligibility 

will be verified after the election and their votes counted, if eligible. (See enc. I, and 

attach. I, for more information on statutes that the Voting Section enforces.) 

The Voting Section, among other things, monitors election-day activities to ensure 

voting rights are protected and initiates investigations and opens matters—an activity 

that has not resulted in a court filing of a complaint, indictment, or information—to 

examine allegations of voting irregularities that fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil 

Rights Division. If warranted, a matter may culminate in a case—an activity that has 

resulted in the filing of a complaint, indictment, or information with a federal court. 
Page 3 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

The Voting Section also may initiate matters to monitor private lawsuits. Voting 

Section attorneys are generally responsible for conducting investigations and 

prosecuting cases. 

The Voting Section also coordinates with PIN to refer allegations the Voting Section 

receives that involve violations of criminal statutes related to voting fraud. For 

example, in relation to the 2002 federal election, the Voting Section referred three 

matters deemed to be potential violations of criminal laws to PIN, which assumed 

responsibility for the investigations. In addition, the Voting Section and PIN have 

provided joint training to Assistant U.S. Attorneys, with the Voting Section presenting 

information about civil rights statutes that are to protect the right to vote and PIN 

presenting information about criminal statutes that are to prevent election fraud. 

Results 

Since November 2000, DOJ has implemented changes to help ensure voter access to 

the polls. The Voting Section emphasized the importance of its monitoring of 

election-day activities and increased its monitoring of these activities. In 2000, DOJ 

attorneys and professional staff monitored elections in 5 counties in 5 states. By 2002, 

the number of election jurisdictions monitored by DOJ attorneys and professional 

staff increased to 19 counties in 10 states, with monitoring of elections in counties in 

Florida accounting for the bulk of the increase. The Voting Section also (1) placed a 

greater priority on protecting the voting rights of language minority voters by helping 

to ensure that certain covered jurisdictions provided bilingual voting materials for 

elections; (2) placed a priority on enforcing and preparing for compliance with the 

federal statute to help ensure voting rights of overseas voters; (3) provided additional 

training to Assistant U.S. Attorneys on civil rights statutes to educate them about 

voters’ rights; and (4) provided guidance to states regarding the implementation of 

sections of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) that DOJ enforces.3

 For 

example, the Voting Section provided guidance to states by issuing a press release 

that outlined provisions of HAVA that took effect on January 1, 2004, such as 

provisional voting and identification requirements for new voters who register by 

mail. 

The Attorney General directed the Civil Rights Division to work with civil rights 

leaders, state and local election officials, and U.S. Attorney Offices prior to election 

day in an effort to help ensure that citizens’ voting rights are protected. The Attorney 

General also directed the Criminal Division to work with these same groups in 

helping to preserve ballot integrity and prevent election offenses. Almost all of the 

U.S. Attorney Offices reported that they had contacted various state or local officials 

prior to the November 2002 election. Voting Section officials reported that the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division and staff from that division 

met with various civil rights organizations. 

 

3

42 U.S.C. §§ 15301 to 15545. 
Page 4 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

According to Voting Section officials, DOJ plans to help ensure voter access for the 

upcoming November 2004 election include increasing its monitoring of elections, 

coordinating with civil rights organizations, and establishing procedures for bringing 

the concerns of civil rights organizations about specific issues or jurisdictions to DOJ 

on or before election day in November 2004. Voting Section officials also said that 

final decisions as to where monitoring will be conducted are not made public until 

shortly before an election. (See enc. I for more information.) 

The Voting Section has used several means of tracking allegations of voting 

irregularities and the Section’s actions with regard to those allegations. First, the 

Voting Section used telephone logs to track telephone calls regarding allegations of 

voting irregularities it received related to the November 2000 and 2002 elections. 

According to the Voting Section, contractors were hired to help handle the 

unprecedented number of calls that were received concerning the November 2000 

election situation to help ensure that the public would be able to voice opinions and 

concerns. Second, DOJ tracks matters and cases through its Interactive Case 

Management (ICM) system—its formal process for tracking and managing work 

activities. Prior to opening a matter, the Voting Section may make a determination 

that an allegation does not fall within DOJ’s jurisdiction or may initiate a preliminary 

investigation about an allegation. Third, the Voting Section tracked monitoring of 

elections using logs and for some election-monitoring activities they opened matters; 

thus, it has not routinely tracked election-monitoring activities through the ICM 

system. (See enc. I for more information.) 

Actions that Voting Section attorneys took to address allegations of voting 

irregularities initiated from November 2000 to December 2003 included contacting 

cognizant election officials at the state and local levels; obtaining data as appropriate; 

interviewing voters affected by alleged voting irregularities; meeting with minority 

groups; and assessing the merits of the allegations to determine what, if any, further 

action was needed. Attorneys in the Voting Section addressed allegations of voting 

irregularities by first determining whether the allegations were related to violations of 

federal civil rights statutes and then, if warranted, initiating a preliminary 

investigation or matter to determine whether an allegation had merit. If warranted, a 

matter may culminate in a case that is filed with a federal court. We reviewed files for 

1 closed preliminary investigation, 25 closed matters, and 8 open and closed cases 

that the Voting Section considered election-related. The preliminary investigation and 

13 matters were closed because they lacked merit. The remaining 12 matters were 

closed because the state or voting jurisdiction took action to remedy an issue, a state 

court issued an order addressing the issue, the voting jurisdiction implemented 

changes for future elections, or Voting Section attorneys provided election officials 

feedback following the on-site monitoring of elections. Six cases remain open 

pending fulfillment of consent decrees entered into on behalf of DOJ and the 

jurisdiction in alleged violation of federal statute, and two cases were closed because 

states had taken action in response to consent decrees. Enclosure I and 

attachment IV provide detailed information on actions taken regarding selected 

matters and cases that the Voting Section considered as involving election-related 

voting irregularities initiated from November 2000 to December 2003. 
Page 5 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Regarding internal controls, we found that the Voting Section did not have a reliable 

method to consistently record and document telephone calls received alleging voting 

irregularities. According to Voting Section officials, the number of calls received 

following the November 2000 election far exceeded the number received in past 

elections. As a result, the Voting Section used a contractor to assist in handling the 

telephone calls. To track some of the telephone calls related to the November 2000 

election, Voting Section and contractor staff used telephone logs that had several 

broad categories to capture the subject of the allegation, rows for states from which 

the calls originated and, for the most part, tabulated the numbers of calls using tick 

marks. Voting Section staff also kept two other types of logs to record some 

telephone calls, which included columns to record a caller’s name, state, telephone 

number, and description of the call. Our analysis of the contractor telephone logs 

found, among other things, that these logs did not include a way to record calls from 

4 states—Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota. According to Voting Section 

officials, these 4 states were left off the contractor logs inadvertently, although these 

officials noted that they were unaware of any calls received from these states. Our 

analysis of logs that Voting Section staff completed found that Voting Section staff 

recorded having received calls from some of these states. The Voting Section 

improved upon the telephone log for the November 2002 election by having one log 

that consistently provided for documenting the caller’s name, telephone number, and 

action taken. Compared with the telephone log that contractor staff maintained and 

one of the three types of logs that Voting Section staff maintained after the November 

2000 election, which had several columns to broadly categorize the subject of the 

telephone calls, the November 2002 log included one column to capture the subject of 

the telephone calls. The Voting Section plans to take several actions to address voting 

irregularities for the November 2004 election, including, among other things, using a 

telephone log similar to the one used for the November 2002 election. The Voting 

Section did not provide written instructions to contractors for completing the 

telephone logs related to the 2000 election. However, for the November 2002 federal 

election, the Voting Section provided instructions to DOJ staff for how to handle calls 

from citizens, the press, members of Congress, and others. In addition to its method 

for recording and documenting telephone calls received regarding voting 

irregularities, we found that the Voting Section did not routinely track its electionmonitoring activities through its ICM system. The Voting Section said that it has plans 

to assign one identification number to track these activities in the future. (See enc. I 

for more information.) 

In conclusion, lack of specifics about allegations and actions limits DOJ’s ability to 

have accurate and clear information to share with the public or Congress about the 

types of allegations received and actions taken. Predictions of another close 

presidential election in November 2004 combined with possible voter confusion over 

new requirements in the Help America Vote Act—such as the implementation of 

provisional voting in states that had not previously used provisional voting—and 

possible questions regarding voting equipment could result in the Voting Section 

again receiving a very large number of telephone calls. This could result in the need 

to use contractors to record voter allegations because much of the Voting Section 

staff will be monitoring election sites on election day. It is important that the 
Page 6 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

information collected be as complete, accurate, and specific as possible regarding 

specific allegations. If the Voting Section collects more precise information about 

voter allegations, it is in a better position to assure the public that it has addressed 

allegations of voting irregularities. Moreover, if it documents actions taken more 

precisely, it is better able to reassure the public and Congress of its commitment to 

enforce federal voting rights statutes. 

The Voting Section emphasized the importance of its monitoring of election-day 

activities, but the monitoring program has not been routinely tracked in the Voting 

Section’s ICM system. We believe the significance of this program warrants a more 

formal tracking of monitoring efforts and resources dedicated to the program to 

allow for reliable, relevant, and timely information for management decision making 

and for external reporting purposes. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

Confidence in our election processes is of utmost importance. To help ensure 

confidence in the integrity of voting processes, the Voting Section plays an important 

role in addressing voting irregularities. By accurately recording and documenting its 

activities in as clear a manner as possible, the Voting Section contributes to assuring 

the public and Congress of the integrity of our voting processes and that allegations 

of voting irregularities have been addressed. 

To reassure citizens of the integrity of our election processes and to reassure the 

public and Congress of DOJ’s commitment to its responsibility to enforce federal 

voting rights statutes, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the Chief of 

the Voting Section to take the following two actions 

 

• develop and implement procedures for the November 2004 election to help 

ensure that the Voting Section has a reliable method of tracking and 

documenting allegations of voting irregularities and actions taken to address 

them. Procedures could include more precise categories to record types of 

allegations and actions taken; development of instructions on completing the 

telephone logs; and development and implementation of training for 

contractors, should they be needed; and 

• implement a method to track and report on election-monitoring activities in 

the ICM system. 

 

Agency Comments 

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. The draft report 

sent to DOJ for comment reflected changes made as a result of DOJ’s prior detailed 

review of attachment IV in enclosure I and changes DOJ requested in writing 

following our exit conference with them. In commenting on the draft, DOJ generally 

agreed with the report and recommendations. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

for the Civil Rights Division accepted both recommendations and said that the 
Page 7 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division has directed their 

implementation. 

In commenting on our recommendation for the Civil Rights Division to track and 

report on election-monitoring activities in the ICM system, DOJ noted that it currently 

has procedures that effectively track election-monitoring activities. Our report 

acknowledges that the Division had information on election monitoring. However, 

the Voting Section told us that they did not routinely track election-monitoring 

activities in the ICM system—its formal process for tracking and managing work 

activities. Because we had asked for clarification of the confusing and unclear 

information previously provided on election monitoring and tracking, the Civil Rights 

Division, in a May 25, 2004, written response provided clarifying information that 

explained the different databases and data from logs that were used to capture 

information on election monitoring. In this written response, the Civil Rights Division 

included four charts on election monitoring that had been recently created, one for 

each calendar year from 2000 through 2003 (but not for 2004, as the Division states it 

did). In addition, the Civil Rights Division said that it had asked for a program that 

would provide the types of reports and data that the Division is routinely asked to 

provide regarding the election-monitoring program. Our recommendation is directed 

toward improving the Voting Section’s tracking of election-monitoring activities, 

which the Voting Section has emphasized as being a very important part of its efforts 

to help ensure voter access to the polls. Tracking election-monitoring activities in the 

ICM system would ensure that this important component of the Voting Section’s 

work is incorporated into the Division’s formal process for tracking and managing 

work activities. 

After we provided DOJ with a copy of the draft report that included this 

correspondence and its enclosure for review and comment, Civil Rights Division 

officials realized they had not provided us with information on all of the telephone 

logs used following the November 2000 election. The Civil Rights Division 

subsequently provided that additional information, which showed that Voting Section 

staff used two additional types of logs for the November 2000 election. These logs 

included columns to record callers’ names, telephone numbers, states, and 

descriptions of the calls. This new information was incorporated into our report to 

accurately reflect the Voting Section’s activities to track telephone calls following the 

November 2000 election. (See p. 5 in this letter and p. 42 in enc. I.) According to the 

Civil Rights Division, the November 2002 log, which it proposes as the basis for 

documenting telephone calls related to the upcoming November 2004 elections, was 

the only one used by Voting Section staff for the November 2002 election. 

DOJ noted that the draft report discussion of the Civil Rights Division’s use of 

telephone logs focused almost exclusively on the logs maintained by contractors, that 

the draft report failed to note that these logs were only a small portion of all the 

records of telephone calls received by the Division, and that any shortcomings in 

these logs were extremely unlikely to have changed the course of subsequent 

investigations. As we note in our report, it was difficult to obtain precise information 

on the number of calls or the specific nature of alleged irregularities from the 
Page 8 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

telephone logs on the November 2000 election. The information that the Voting 

Section collected on its telephone logs was not precise enough to support the 

Division’s statements that upwards of 95 percent of the calls received regarding the 

November 2000 election reflected citizen frustration or anger over the election, that 

the vast majority of the calls that contractors received came from New York and 

California, or that the vast majority of the calls from those two states expressed 

frustration over the situation in Florida. Moreover, it is important to note that our 

recommendation with regard to recording complaints about voting irregularities for 

the November 2004 election is based on the limitations of the log used in 

November 2002 and the lack of a clear plan for accurately recording a potentially 

large volume of complaints that may arise from the November 2004 election. For 

example, November 2004 will be the first national election in which all states will be 

implementing HAVA’s new voter identification and provisional voting requirements 

with which many voters may be unfamiliar. 

In its comments, DOJ said that the Civil Rights Division invited us to meet with 

Voting Section staff who worked during the time of the November 2000 election and 

that we declined this invitation. We did not receive an invitation from officials in the 

Civil Rights Division, who arranged our meetings with Voting Section staff, to meet to 

discuss the November 2000 election logs. Throughout this review, we requested 

meetings with Voting Section and Civil Rights Division officials. It is always our 

preference, as part of our work, to meet with agency officials to discuss issues and 

questions we may have about agency processes, procedures, and documentation. 

However, Civil Rights Division officials preferred that we provide questions in writing 

and to respond to those questions in writing. The Civil Rights Division sometimes 

took weeks to respond in writing, which contributed significantly to the length of 

time it took us to complete our review. Had Civil Rights Division officials been more 

willing to meet with us to explain the Voting Section’s processes and discuss the 

documentation provided to us, rather than rely on written questions and responses, 

the time required for this review could have been significantly reduced. 

DOJ’s written comments are in attachment V. DOJ also provided technical comments 

from the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and from the Civil Rights 

Division, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Civil Rights Division provided 

additional information on cases initiated for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. The 

2002 and 2003 cases involved enforcement under Sections 2 and 208 of the Voting 

Rights Act and were not clearly identifiable in the ICM system as also involving 

language minority issues under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights 

Division subsequently identified these cases as including enforcement of language 

minority violations, and we have included them in our report. Information on cases 

initiated in calendar year 2004 had not been included because our review covered 

complete calendar years, but we have added information on cases initiated in 2004 as 

of August 2004 as a courtesy to the Division. 

___ ___ ___ ___ ____ 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, we plan 

no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we 
Page 9 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

will send copies of this report to the Attorney General, Department of Justice; 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Chairman, House Committee 

on Government Reform; Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary; Chairman and 

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on House Administration; and 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Rules and 

Administration. Copies of this report will be made available to other interested 

parties upon request. This report will also be available on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or 

by e-mail at jenkinswo@gao.gov or Linda Watson, Assistant Director, at (202) 

512-8685 or by e-mail at watsonl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were 

Katherine Davis, Gina Flacco, Evan Gilman, Geoffrey Hamilton, Mary Martin, 

Maria Santos, and Daniele Schiffman. 

William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

Enclosures 
Page 10 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

1

DOJ Activities to Address Past 

Election-Related Voting Irregularities

Results of work completed for the

Ranking Minority Member of the 

House Committee on Government Reform,

Ranking Minority Member of the 

House Committee on the Judiciary, and

Ranking Member of the 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

August 31, 2004

Enclosure I
Page 11 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

2

Contents

• Objectives

• Results in Brief

• Scope and Methodology

• Background

• Changes to Ensure Voter Access

• Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations

• Assessment of Internal Controls

• Conclusions

• Recommendations

• Attachment I—Federal Voting Rights Statutes

• Attachment II—Role of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section

• Attachment III—Election Jurisdictions Monitored during 2000-2003

• Attachment IV—Election-Related Preliminary Investigation, Matters, 

and Cases Initiated from November 2000 to December 2003

• Attachment V—Agency Comments 
Page 12 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

3

Objectives

This briefing addresses the following objectives:

1. Identify and describe any changes the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) has made since November 2000 to help ensure voter 

access to the polls.

2. Identify and describe any actions that the Voting Section in DOJ’s 

Civil Rights Division has taken to track (monitoring work initiated 

and actions taken), address, and assess allegations of electionrelated voting irregularities received between November 2000 and

December 2003.

• Election-related refers to a preliminary investigation, matter, or 

case that the Voting Section initiated pursuant to an allegation

about a specific election.
Page 13 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

4

Objectives

• A preliminary investigation is an investigation into an allegation that has not 

been assigned an identification number. A matter is an activity that has been 

assigned an identification number but has not resulted in a court filing of a 

complaint, indictment, or information. A case is an activity that has been 

assigned the same identification number that it had as a matter and has 

resulted in the court filing of a complaint, indictment, or information.

• Voting irregularities, for purposes of this review, generally refer to a broad 

array of complaints relating to voting and/or elections that may involve 

violations of federal voting rights and/or federal criminal law for which DOJ has 

enforcement responsibilities.

3. Assess the Voting Section’s internal control activities to help ensure relevant, 

accurate, and reliable recording and documentation of allegations of voting 

irregularities for management decision-making and external reporting purposes.

• Internal controls are integral components of an organization’s management 

that provide reasonable assurance of objectives that include, among other 

things, efficient operations. They comprise the plans, methods, and 

procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives and, in doing so, 

support performance-based management. 
Page 14 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

5

Results in Brief

1. Since November 2000, DOJ has increased its monitoring of election activities 

on election day, provided additional training to Assistant U.S. Attorneys on civil 

rights laws, placed a greater priority on protecting the voting rights of language 

minorities and overseas voters, and provided guidance to states regarding 

implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). 

2. The Civil Rights Division tracks matters and cases through a case 

management system. Telephone calls related to the 2000 and 2002 federal 

elections were tracked using telephone logs. The Voting Section addressed 

allegations of voting irregularities by contacting cognizant officials, obtaining 

data if deemed appropriate, and assessing the merits of the allegation to 

determine what, if any, further action was needed.

3. The Voting Section tracked the unprecedented volume of telephone calls 

related to the November 2000 election by using logs. Some logs had several 

broad categories to capture the subject of the calls and rows for states from 

which the calls originated, while other logs contained callers’ names, contact 

information, and description of the calls. The Voting Section improved upon the 

telephone log for the November 2002 election by including categories to 

capture the action taken on each call and to record the caller’s name, 

telephone number, and subject of the call. The Voting Section tracked some 

monitoring of elections by assigning matter identification numbers. 
Page 15 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

6

Scope and Methodology
Page 16 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

7

Scope

To address our objectives, we performed work at DOJ’s:

• Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section,

• Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section (PIN),

• Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Public Corruption Unit, and

• Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA).
Page 17 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

8

Methodology

Objective 1

To identify changes in DOJ’s efforts to help ensure voter access to the 

polls, we

• gathered documentation on DOJ’s efforts to

• monitor and observe elections, 

• increase emphasis on enforcement of minority language and 

overseas voters’ rights,

• disseminate election-related guidance, and

• increase its resources to address voting issues, and

• interviewed responsible officials primarily in DOJ’s Voting Section 

and PIN.
Page 18 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

9

Methodology

Objective 2

To identify DOJ’s actions to track, address, and assess allegations of voting 

irregularities, we

• interviewed officials in the Voting Section about procedures for tracking, 

addressing, and assessing allegations of voting irregularities;

• analyzed information on the approximately 11,000 reported telephone calls 

made to the Voting Section about the November 2000 election; and

• reviewed all files that the Voting Section identified as those it considered to 

be election-related voting irregularities that were initiated from November 

2000 to December 2003. This included 1 closed preliminary investigation, 

25 closed matters, and 8 closed and open cases. The Voting Section tracks 

its matters and cases based on statutes it enforces and not on whether an 

allegation relates to a specific election. Consequently, the Voting Section 

had to identify for us the preliminary investigation, matters, and cases that it 

considered to be election-related voting irregularities.
Page 19 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

10

Background

Voting Section
Page 20 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

11

Background

Voting Section

Voting Section responsibilities include:

• enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which is designed to safeguard the right 

to vote of racial and language minorities and illiterate persons, among 

other provisions;

• enforcing federal statutes designed to safeguard the right to vote of 

disabled, elderly, military, and overseas voters; and

• enforcing provisions of the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help 

America Vote Act (HAVA) which address issues such as voter 

registration, provisional voting, and voter information. 

Attachment I provides more information on statutes that the Voting Section 

enforces.
Page 21 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

12

Background

Voting Section

The Voting Section, among other things, monitors election-day activities to 

ensure voting rights are protected and initiates investigations and opens 

matters to examine allegations of voting irregularities that fall within the 

jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Division. If warranted, a matter may 

culminate in a case that is filed with a federal court. 

Voting Section attorneys are generally responsible for conducting 

investigations and prosecuting civil cases. The Voting Section also may 

initiate matters to monitor private lawsuits. 

The Voting Section coordinates with the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity 

Section (PIN) to help ensure voters’ rights are protected, such as 

referring three allegations to PIN about possible election crimes related 

to the 2002 election. (See attach. II for more information about PIN’s 

election-related responsibilities.)
Page 22 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

13

Background

Voting Section

The following table provides information on all matters and cases initiated by the Voting 

Section in calendar years 2000 through 2003. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from DOJ’s Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section.

According to Voting Section officials, the number of matters was higher in 2002 because the 

Voting Section initiated new matters for each of the over 80 newly covered jurisdictions 

required by the Voting Rights Act to provide bilingual election materials and assistance to 

language minority citizens. Following the 2000 Census, DOJ, in conjunction with the U.S. 

Census Bureau, identified these 80 jurisdictions. The Voting Rights Act requires 

jurisdictions to provide language minority assistance when certain criteria are met, such as 

when more than 5 percent of the citizens of voting age, or more than 10,000 of the citizens 

of voting age, are members of a single language minority group, and are unable to speak 

or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process.

Year initiated Matters Cases Total

2000 70 18 88

2001 53 6 59

2002 127 18 145

2003 99 4 103

Total 349 46 395
Page 23 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

14

Background

Voting Section

As shown in the following table, the Voting Section’s positions for attorneys (authorized and 

on-board) increased since the beginning of fiscal year 2000.

Source: DOJ’s Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section.

The number of authorized and on-board attorneys declined at the end of fiscal year 2003 

because the number of submissions to the Voting Section for redistricting changes 

following the 2000 Census began to decline that year, according to Voting Section officials. Every 10 years, after the federal census, states redraw their legislative election districts to 

make these districts equal in population. The process of drawing new election district 

boundaries is called redistricting.

Time period Authorized attorney 

positions

Attorneys on-board

Start FY 2000 34 31

End FY 2000 36 35

End FY 2001 47 40

End FY 2002 47 42

End FY 2003 41 38

As of April 16, 2004 41 39
Page 24 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

15

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access
Page 25 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

16

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Results in Brief

Since November 2000, DOJ focused on ensuring voter access to the polls 

by

• placing more emphasis on its election-monitoring program,

• providing additional training for certain Assistant U.S. Attorneys who 

handle election-related issues that included placing more emphasis 

on handling civil rights issues,

• directing U.S. Attorney Offices to contact election and other officials 

at the state and local level to offer assistance prior to election day, 

• placing greater priority on enforcing the voting rights of language 

minorities and overseas voters, and

• providing guidance to states regarding HAVA implementation.
Page 26 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

17

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access 

Emphasis Placed on Election Monitoring

In March 2001, the Attorney General announced that DOJ was placing more 

emphasis on its election-monitoring program. The Attorney General is 

authorized by law to notify the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) of the 

need to assign federal observers to monitor polling place activities on election 

day in counties that the Attorney General has certified under the Voting Rights 

Act and in counties authorized by federal court orders. The Attorney General 

delegates the authority with respect to federal observers to the Voting Section. 

The Voting Section’s decision to request federal observers is based on past 

experience or investigations that indicated observers may be needed to protect 

voting rights. (See attach. I for information on the law authorizing federal 

observers.)

In addition to OPM federal observers, the Voting Section assigns DOJ attorneys 

and professional staff to monitor election day activities in local jurisdictions 

throughout the United States, whether or not the locations have been certified 

under the Voting Rights Act. This additional monitoring is part of the Voting 

Section’s investigations of possible voting rights violations. Unlike OPM 

observers, DOJ attorneys and professional staff do not have specific statutory 

right of access to polling places and must get authority from the appropriate 

state and/or local officials for them to enter polling places. 
Page 27 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

18

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access 

Emphasis Placed on Election Monitoring

DOJ attorneys and professional staff are assigned to these jurisdictions 

when there may be insufficient time to arrange for federal observers in 

covered jurisdictions, or when the results of Voting Section staff’s preelection investigations indicate the need for some limited federal 

presence. 

The Attorney General directed the Voting Section to increase resources 

devoted to the election-monitoring program through the use of OPM 

federal observers and DOJ attorneys and professional staff. 

The level of resources used and number of elections monitored were 

greater in federal election years (even-numbered years) than other 

years, as shown in the next figure. 
Page 28 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

19

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Emphasis Placed on Election Monitoring

The number of OPM federal observers and DOJ attorneys and 

professional staff were greater in the 2002 elections than in the 

2000 elections. Similarly, more elections were monitored in 

2002 than in 2000.

Note: DOJ monitors are attorneys and professional staff.
Page 29 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

20

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Emphasis Placed on Election Monitoring

OPM federal observers are always accompanied by DOJ attorneys and 

professional staff when monitoring elections and were present for elections held 

during calendar years 2000 through 2003 in Attorney General-certified and 

court-ordered counties and jurisdictions in several states. In a few instances, 

DOJ attorneys and professional staff independently monitored elections in these 

Attorney General-certified and court-ordered counties and jurisdictions.

DOJ attorneys and professional staff also independently monitored elections in 

counties and jurisdictions that were not Attorney General-certified or under court 

order during this 4-year period. In 2000, DOJ attorneys and professional staff 

monitored elections in 5 counties in 5 states. By 2002, the number of election 

jurisdictions monitored by DOJ attorneys and professional staff increased to 19 

counties in 10 states, with monitoring of elections in counties in Florida 

accounting for the bulk of the increase.

According to the Voting Section, election monitoring is a high-priority program of 

DOJ and a very important part of the Section’s efforts to address voting 

irregularities.

See attachment III for more information on election monitoring in Attorney Generalcertified and court-ordered election jurisdictions and election jurisdictions that 

DOJ monitored independently. 
Page 30 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

21

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access 

Training

Officials in the Voting Section and PIN said that Assistant U.S. Attorneys can attend 

annual public corruption conferences, where they receive (1) training on handling 

election crime investigations and prosecutions and (2) periodic updates to DOJ’s 

manual on prosecuting election crimes. Starting in October 2002, additional 

annual training, referred to as the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Conference, 

was provided to Assistant U.S. Attorneys who, in coordination with DOJ 

headquarters, handle election-related matters for the 93 U.S. Attorneys. 

The Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Conference training, according to Civil Rights 

Division officials, included civil rights issues that had not been covered in the 

training offered to Assistant U.S. Attorneys prior to October 2002 and was 

designed to provide them a better understanding of what the Voting Section does 

to enforce federal voting rights statutes. Also, according to the Civil Rights 

Division, the presentations that the Voting Section made at this annual training 

conference placed special emphasis on the election-monitoring program and 

solicited the Assistant U.S. Attorneys’ involvement in helping to enforce federal 

voting rights laws, ballot access, and the election-monitoring program. According 

to PIN, this training, which was mandatory for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

designated as district election officers, also covers voting integrity issues 

important to election crime matters.
Page 31 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

22

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access 

Training

The Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Conference training was provided to 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys in October 2002, September 2003, and July 

2004. 

The training materials for 2002 included topics related to federal voter 

registration and election-day statutes that the Voting Section enforces, 

which include the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, and 

the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and topics 

related to handling election crime investigations, trials, and the statutes 

and theories used to address election crimes. 

The 2003 training materials included, in addition to the same topics 

covered in 2002, information on HAVA and election monitoring by 

federal observers. According to PIN and the Voting Section, the content 

of the 2004 training was similar to that provided in previous years. 
Page 32 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

23

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Contacts with State and Local Election Officials

In October 2002, the Attorney General directed each U.S. Attorney to 

coordinate with state and local election and law enforcement officials 

prior to the November 2002 elections to, in part, explore ways that they 

could work more closely together to deter and detect discrimination and 

to deter and prosecute election crimes. 

According to PIN officials, the Attorney General’s October 2002 directive 

(1) formalized an ad-hoc practice that had existed in DOJ for many 

years of coordinating elections and election-related matters with state 

officials and (2) led to a systematic effort to coordinate election issues 

and matters with these officials. 
Page 33 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

24

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Contacts with State and Local Election Officials

Prior to the November 2002 federal elections, almost all of the U.S. 

Attorney Offices reported to PIN that they had contacted various state or 

local officials either by telephone, in writing, or in person. 

The state and local officials contacted varied by each U.S. Attorney Office. 

For example, according to PIN,

• the three U.S. Attorneys in the state of Florida reported having

met with the Florida Secretary of State and

• the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California reported 

having met with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, 

Election Administrator, and Deputy District Attorney, and the 

Imperial County Registrar of Voters and District Attorney. 
Page 34 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

25

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Contacts with Civil Rights and Other Organizations

The Attorney General directed the Civil Rights Division was to work with civil rights 

leaders, state and local election officials, and U.S. Attorney Offices prior to 

election day in an effort to help ensure that citizens’ voting rights are protected. 

The Attorney General also directed the Criminal Division to work with these 

same groups in helping to preserve ballot integrity and prevent election offenses. 

According to the Voting Section, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 

Division has met with representatives of civil rights organizations to discuss the 

Voting Section’s election-monitoring program and its plans for monitoring the 

November 2004 election and has made other presentations concerning voting 

rights issues at many of these organizations’ meetings and conferences. The 

Voting Section also said that as this election approaches, it plans to ask civil 

rights organizations what election jurisdictions they believe the Voting Section 

should consider monitoring.

The Voting Section also said that since October 2002, staff from the Civil Rights 

Division have made presentations to, met with, or received presentations from 

various civil rights and other organizations, such as the NAACP, Lawyers’ 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, League of United Latin American 

Citizens, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, AARP, National Association of Secretaries of State, and National Association of State Election Directors.
Page 35 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

26

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access 

Language Minority Voting Rights

In 2002, the Civil Rights Division made enforcement of voting rights laws that 

address access to voting for language minority groups one of the Voting 

Section’s highest priorities. DOJ reported in a civil rights accomplishments fact 

sheet that the Civil Rights Division conducted an outreach campaign with state 

and local election officials and local language minority groups to help ensure 

access to bilingual voting materials for language minority groups. This was 

begun in July 2002 following the certification of covered jurisdictions based on 

the results of the 2000 census.

• The fact sheet states that the outreach included a July 2002 letter from the 

then- Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division to each of the 

296 political jurisdictions covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act 

notifying them of their bilingual access obligations in the upcoming and 

future elections. According to the Civil Rights Division, attorneys from the 

Division visited many of the 296 counties covered by Section 203.

• In addition, the fact sheet reported that Civil Rights Division attorneys 

conducted in-person meetings with state and local election officials and 

local language minority groups in almost all of the more than 80 newly 

covered jurisdictions. 
Page 36 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

27

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access 

Language Minority Voting Rights

We analyzed data as of March 15, 2004, on matters and cases related to Section 

203 language minority issues recorded in DOJ’s Interactive Case Management 

(ICM) system, which is used to track and manage these data. We found that the 

Voting Section initiated 7 matters and no cases in 2000, 13 matters and 2 cases 

in 2001, 94 matters and 1 case in 2002, and 28 matters and no cases in 2003. 

According to the Civil Rights Division, the Division also initiated the following 

cases: (1) two language assistance cases in 2002 under Section 2 and Section 

208 of the Voting Rights Act; (2) two cases in 2003 under Section 2, Section 

203, and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act; and (3) five cases in 2004 under 

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. Sections 2, 203, and 208 of the Voting 

Rights Act are described in attachment I.
Page 37 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

28

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens

Given the large number of troops deployed overseas and an increase in concerns about late 

mailing of absentee ballots, Voting Section officials said that the Voting Section placed 

increased priority in 2004 on enforcing and preparing to ensure compliance with the 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which only applies to 

federal elections. These officials cited the following enforcement and preparation activities 

during 2004.

• Obtained a court order in April for emergency relief to remedy an UOCAVA violation committed during the Pennsylvania primary election.

• Negotiated with the state of Alabama in May to obtain a similar emergency relief order from a state court for a county’s failure to provide enough time for the mailing to 

and return of ballots from overseas voters for its primary election.

• Obtained a court order in an UOCAVA lawsuit in July against the state of Georgia for similar emergency relief for its primary election. 

• Established a working group of Voting Section attorneys to facilitate communications with the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program, which is 

charged with administering UOCAVA, and to plan for the possibility of more UOCAVA 

litigation during 2004.

Our analysis of matters and cases in DOJ’s ICM system as of March 15, 2004, showed that 

the Voting Section initiated 3 matters and 2 cases during calendar years 2000 through 

2003 involving the issue of absentee voting by uniformed and overseas citizens. All 5 of 

the matters and cases were initiated in 2002. 
Page 38 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

29

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access 

Guidance to States on HAVA

In October 2002, HAVA established the Election Assistance Commission to, in part, serve as 

a national clearinghouse and resource to compile information and review procedures 

related to federal election administration and provide guidance on implementing certain 

HAVA requirements. Because the Election Assistance Commission was not established 

until December 2003, the Voting Section provided informal, nonbinding guidance to states 

on implementing the requirements of HAVA.

The Voting Section’s guidance to states on HAVA’s requirements included

• interpreting requirements of the law and advising states on how to comply with them based on DOJ’s enforcement role under HAVA;

• responding to inquiries from state and local officials;

• making presentations at various meetings and conferences;

• writing letters to the chief state election official, governor, and attorney general in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories offering to 

assist the jurisdictions in their efforts to ensure compliance with HAVA and 

summarizing HAVA provisions;

• creating a HAVA information page on its Web site; and 

• issuing a press release that outlined provisions of HAVA that took effect on January 1, 2004, such as provisional voting and identification requirements for new 

voters who register by mail.

According to the Civil Rights Division, the Voting Section also filed its first enforcement action 

in California in 2004 against a county for violating the voter information provisions of 

HAVA.
Page 39 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

30

Changes to Help Ensure Voter Access

Plans for November 2004 Election

According to Voting Section officials, DOJ’s plans for helping to ensure voter 

access for the November 2004 election include 

• increasing its on-site monitoring of elections considerably over prior years 

through greater use of staff from other sections in the Civil Rights Division. 

Voting Section officials also said that final decisions as to where monitoring 

will be conducted are not made public until shortly before an election, but 

they told us that the Voting Section has prepared a list of jurisdictions for 

consideration based on consent decrees and will update the list with other 

jurisdictions being considered for coverage as the election approaches. 

According to these officials, the Voting Section has not established a 

specific goal for achieving an increase in staff or elections to be covered, 

and

• coordinating with civil rights organizations that will be monitoring the 

election and establishing procedures for bringing their concerns about 

specific issues or jurisdictions to DOJ on or before election day in 

November 2004.
Page 40 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

31

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations
Page 41 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

32

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations

Results in Brief

In our review, we found that the Civil Rights Division had formal procedures to track matters 

and cases to address voting irregularities. Specifically, the Voting Section tracks 

investigative matters and cases through the Division’s ICM system using unique 

identification numbers. In addition, the Voting Section tracked telephone calls alleging 

voting irregularities for the November 2000 and November 2002 elections using telephone 

logs. 

Voting Section attorneys addressed and assessed allegations of election-related voting 

irregularities initiated from November 2000 to December 2003 in various ways, depending 

on the allegation. Our review of files related to 1 preliminary close investigation, 25 closed 

matters, and 8 open and closed cases generally found that attorneys contacted cognizant 

officials and assessed the legal merits of evidence of alleged violations of civil rights laws.

In our review of files, we found that Voting Section attorneys generally addressed allegations 

of voting irregularities initiated from November 2000 to December 2003 through a 

preliminary investigation or investigative matters and took actions such as interviewing 

election officials at state and local levels, interviewing voters affected by alleged voting 

irregularities, and meeting with civil rights groups. 

Our review of Voting Section files also found that Voting Section attorneys, in conjunction with 

supervisory attorneys, assessed information collected and determined whether (1) federal 

voting rights laws were violated; (2) an investigation should be closed; or (3) further action 

was needed by the Voting Section, such as filing a complaint with a federal court or 

continued monitoring.
Page 42 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

33

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations 

Tracking Allegations of Voting Irregularities

The ICM is a database system that the Voting Section uses to track and 

manage matter and case data for the Section and can be used to 

generate reports. 

Each matter and case is assigned a DJ number, which is an unique

identification number. Information on matters and cases can be 

searched by the identification numbers, statutes, and other information 

maintained in the system.

The system is set up to automatically enter certain data and has required 

fields for which data must be entered. Voting Section staff can enter 

other data into the system, as appropriate. 
Page 43 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

34

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations 

Tracking Allegations of Voting Irregularities

Officials told us that the Voting Section

• receives numerous citizen calls, comments, and questions daily; 

• receives telephone calls, e-mails, faxes, letters, and packages. Most of the calls and written allegations from citizens do not concern issues within the jurisdiction of the 

Civil Rights Division and, in such instances, the caller is often notified of this 

determination over the telephone and referred to other state or federal agencies with 

possible jurisdiction;

• documented telephone calls received at the Section’s toll free telephone number using telephone logs for the 2000 and 2002 elections;

• found that only a small percentage of allegations that it received following the November 2000 election fell within its jurisdiction or presented substantive issues that 

merited further review. Notations on logs documenting telephone calls related to the 

November 2000 election indicated that some of the calls– we were unable to quantify 

the number of calls because of the way calls were recorded– were related to 

dissatisfaction with the outcome of the election or other issues such as general 

complaints about the election process that contained no specific allegations of 

violations of federal laws; 

• in addition to following up with people who called the Voting Section after the November 2000 election, Voting Section staff pursued other avenues of complaints, 

such as complaint logs generated by the NAACP Voter Fund, hearings conducted by 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the NAACP, and incidents receiving a large 

amount of publicity, to determine if federal laws had been violated; and

• expects attorneys to find new matters for investigation in addition to assignments made by Section management.
Page 44 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

35

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations 

Tracking Allegations of Voting Irregularities

Voting Section officials told us that on election day

• in addition to calls received by the Section at its toll-free number, an OPM 

federal examiner maintains a toll-free telephone number to receive calls. An 

examiner is a federal employee assigned by OPM to receive complaints of racial 

or minority language discriminatory voting practices. (See attach. I for the statute 

related to federal examiners.) Any allegations taken by the examiner that are 

deemed to require immediate attention are routed to the Civil Rights Division 

when received, while other allegations are transmitted after the election and 

reviewed to determine if further action is needed. According to the Chief of the 

Voting Section, they received few, if any, allegations from examiners in relation 

to the November 2000 election, and

• a small number of Civil Rights Division staff remain available at the Voting 

Section on major election days to take citizen calls, with the vast majority of 

Section staff at various locations around the country for monitoring purposes. 

Major problems that arise from these calls are routed to attorney supervisors to 

determine what actions are needed.

Our review of files included five matters that were initiated to monitor elections. 

According to Voting Section officials, this activity is not routinely tracked through 

the ICM, but they plan to designate a single identification number to track this 

activity.
Page 45 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

36

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations 

Actions to Address Allegations

The following presents information on the Voting Section’s process for 

addressing allegations related to voting irregularities.

• If the Voting Section deems that a voting allegation falls within its jurisdiction and appears to have merit, an attorney is assigned to 

make inquiries about the allegation. The attorney performs some

investigative work to determine whether the allegation should be

pursued. 

• If an attorney believes a matter should be investigated, the attorney discusses this with the Deputy Chief responsible for the state in 

which the matter rises. The Section Chief and Deputies decide 

whether or not to formally open a matter. The Voting Section 

assigns a number to the matter for tracking purposes. 

• When Voting Section staff monitor elections and receive allegations of or information about voting irregularities while on site, they make 

efforts to resolve allegations by contacting local election officials 

immediately. Further investigation of such irregularities is 

conducted after an election if the allegation was not resolved on 

election day or if it is deemed otherwise necessary to prevent such 

problems from arising in the future. 
Page 46 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

37

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations 

Actions to Address Allegations

Our file review found that the Voting Section generally took the following 

actions during its investigations initiated from November 2000 to 

December 2003:

• Interviewed state and county election officials, other state and county officials who may provide insight into the investigation, state 

Attorneys General, voters raising the allegations, and 

representatives from the NAACP and other minority groups.

• Requested documentation detailing certain election procedures.

• Facilitated the resolution of allegations and issues that arose during elections, when monitoring elections. If Voting Section staff 

monitoring elections received allegations about voting irregularities, 

they immediately took steps to resolve the allegations by contacting 

local election officials.

• Where deemed appropriate, filed enforcement actions in federal court against jurisdictions that allegedly violated federal voting rights 

laws by either obtaining judgments against them or entering into

consent decrees with jurisdictions that agree to remedy their alleged 

violations of federal voting statutes.
Page 47 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

38

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations 

Actions to Assess Allegations

Following the investigation of a preliminary investigation or matter, a Voting 

Section attorney, in conjunction with a supervisor, determines whether 

the allegation has merit, whether the preliminary investigation or matter 

should be pursued further, or whether the preliminary investigation or 

matter should be closed. The determination to close a matter or pursue 

it as a case is a legal judgment and is often based on whether there is 

deemed to be a sufficient evidence of violations of voting rights laws and 

whether the state or local election officials have taken action to correct 

problems. 

The Voting Section identified a total of 34 closed investigations and open 

and closed cases initiated between November 2000 and December 

2003 that it considered to involve election-related voting irregularities: 1 

closed preliminary investigation, 25 closed matters, and 8 open and 

closed cases. 

The preliminary investigation was closed because the Voting Section 

concluded that the allegation lacked merit.
Page 48 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

39

Actions to Track, Address, and Assess Allegations 

Actions to Assess Allegations

For the 25 closed matters: 

• 13 were closed because the Voting Section concluded that the allegations lacked merit;

• 5 were closed because the state or voting jurisdictions took actions to resolve the issues (e.g., one state passed an election law, and the Voting Section approved changes to 

election procedures that one city had proposed);

• 4 were closed following the completion of elections, and the Voting Section provided 

feedback or observations related to election procedures while monitoring elections;

• 2 were closed because voting jurisdictions implemented changes for future elections; and

• 1 was closed because a state court issued an order addressing the issue. 

For the 8 cases: 

• 6 are open pending fulfillment of consent decrees entered into on behalf of DOJ and the 

jurisdiction in alleged violation of statute, and

• 2 are closed because consent decrees entered into on behalf of DOJ and the jurisdictions 

in alleged violation of statutes required states to take corrective actions and states did so 

by passing legislation, among other actions.

Attachment IV provides detailed information on the results of our file review of the 34 closed 

preliminary investigation and matters and open and closed cases initiated from November 

2000 to December 2003 that the Voting Section considered as involving election-related 

voting irregularities.
Page 49 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

40

Assessment of Internal Controls
Page 50 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

41

Assessment of Internal Controls

Results in Brief

In our review, we found that 

• the Voting Section tracked telephone calls related to the November 2000 

election by using telephone logs. Some logs had several broad 

categories to capture the subject of the calls, rows for states from which 

the calls originated and, for the most part, tabulated the numbers of calls 

using tick marks. Other logs that the Voting Section used contained 

information such as callers’ names, telephone numbers, and 

descriptions of the calls. The Voting Section improved upon the 

telephone log for the November 2002 election by including columns to 

record the action taken on each call in addition to recording the caller’s 

name and telephone number, but has one column to capture the subject 

of the call, and

• as mentioned previously, the Voting Section tracked some monitoring of 

elections by opening matters and assigning each matter an identification 

number. According to Voting Section officials, it has not routinely 

tracked election-monitoring activities through the case management 

system but is considering assigning one identification number to track 

election-monitoring activities.
Page 51 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

42

Assessment of Internal Controls

November 2000 Election Telephone Logs

The Voting Section received an unprecedented volume of telephone calls in 

November and December 2000 related to the unusual events surrounding the 

November 2000 presidential election.

• The Voting Section reported to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that it received approximately 11,000 calls related to the November 2000 

election. In comparison, the Voting Section told us it received several 

hundred calls related to the November 2002 election. The Voting Section 

told us it does not have records of telephone calls related to other elections 

except to the extent that such telephone calls generated investigations that 

became matters or cases.

• According to the Voting Section, contractors were hired in November 2000 to help handle the unprecedented number of incoming telephone calls 

received concerning the November 2000 election to help ensure that the 

public would be able to voice opinions and concerns. Hiring contractors 

was not intended as a mechanism to gather specific allegations.

• Voting Section staff and contractors kept telephone logs that consisted of tables with columns identifying broad categories of allegations or comments 

and rows with the state from which a call originated. Voting Section staff 

also kept two other types of logs, which included the caller’s name, state, 

telephone number, and description of the call. Calls were recorded on most 

logs as tick marks, while some logs included limited narrative on the nature of the call.
Page 52 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

43

Assessment of Internal Controls

November 2000 Election Telephone Logs

Our analysis of the telephone call logs completed by contractors found the 

following:

• It was difficult to count how many calls were received because, for example, one caller could have made multiple complaints and some logs appeared to be duplicates.

• The call logs did not include a way to record calls from 4 states—Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota. According to Voting Section officials, 

these 4 states were left off the contractor logs inadvertently, although these 

officials noted that they were unaware of any calls received from these 

states. Our analysis found that Voting Section staff recorded having 

received calls from some of these states.

• Columns that were used to record callers were labeled voter fraud, 

irregularities, request investigation, re-vote, and general comments. In 

some of the logs, the columns were re-labeled manually to tally additional 

types of comments. The broad nature of these column labels to record 

information about the nature of the calls and the limited narrative sometimes 

included on logs did not always provide sufficient information to determine 

whether the Voting Section should initiate an investigation. 

• The telephone logs did not include information on callers’ contact information such as telephone numbers.
Page 53 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

44

Assessment of Internal Controls

November 2000 Election Telephone Logs

Some of the telephone logs that Voting Section and contractor staff completed 

included comments indicating allegations that people may have been prevented 

from voting. According to the Voting Section, Voting Section personnel reviewed 

logs on an ongoing basis and efforts were made to contact callers who provided 

telephone numbers and whose messages indicated possible violations of federal 

civil rights statutes. The Voting Section does not have records indicating how 

many such return calls were made and noted that return telephone contact 

information was not always provided or asked for.

According to Voting Section officials, an assessment of the calls led them to 

determine that most of the calls focused on concerns about the election situation 

in Florida, often from citizens in states other than Florida, and that few 

allegations included substantive information about possible violations of federal 

law. However, the information on the November 2000 telephone logs is not 

precise enough to document this assessment. 
Page 54 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

45

Assessment of Internal Controls

November 2002 Election Telephone Logs

For the November 2002 federal election, the Voting Section assigned staff 

to receive calls; provided instructions for how to handle calls from 

citizens, the press, members of Congress, and others; and provided 

state contact information to refer callers to state officials, when 

appropriate. 

According to Voting Section officials, a telephone log was used to record 

calls received. The telephone log included columns to record time of 

call; caller information for name, city, state, and telephone number; 

subject; and action. No instructions were provided with the telephone 

log about how to complete it regarding the type of information to be 

included in the subject or action columns.
Page 55 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

46

Assessment of Internal Controls

Plans for the November 2004 Election

According to the Civil Rights Division, the Voting Section plans to ensure 

that it has full capability to receive and respond, as appropriate, to all 

calls related to the November 2004 general election in the most 

expeditious way possible. Division officials further stated that the Voting 

Section has procedures in place to track and respond to telephone calls 

that it might receive in relation to the November 2004 general election. 

• Specifically, the Civil Rights Division told us that the Voting Section 

plans to use a telephone log such as the one used for the November 

2002 election to record information on the caller’s name, time of call, 

city and state, telephone number, subject of the call, and action 

taken on the call. The Division noted that the November 2002 log or 

any log that the Voting Section might use for the November 2004 

election is a tool to ensure that the Voting Section does not miss 

calls raising important concerns over which it has jurisdiction and is 

not intended to definitively track all election-related allegations 

received. 
Page 56 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

47

Assessment of Internal Controls

Plans for the November 2004 Election

The Civil Rights Division also cited other procedures that the Voting 

Section plans to use to track and respond to possible telephone calls 

related to the November 2004 general election. These procedures will 

include the Voting Section

• continuing its practice of assigning its staff to specific states for the 

purpose of reviewing citizen calls and letters;

• keeping a sufficient number of staff and supervisory attorneys in 

headquarters on election day to handle calls and to respond to 

allegations referred from Voting Section staff monitoring elections in the 

field on that day; and

• using contractors, if needed, to take telephone calls. The Division plans 

to determine the need to use contractors on a case-by-case basis.
Page 57 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

48

Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 58 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

49

Internal Controls

Conclusions

• The Voting Section received an unprecedented number of calls related 

to the November 2000 election and took steps to document telephone 

calls. According to the Voting Section, it also documented calls for the 

November 2002 election for which far fewer calls were received. The 

2000 and 2002 election telephone logs differed somewhat in format, and 

improvements were made regarding how information was collected on 

the 2002 election telephone log. The Voting Section did not provide 

written instructions to contractors in November 2000 about how to 

complete the logs, but did provide written instructions to DOJ staff on 

completing some of the information for the 2002 logs. However, both 

logs lack precision for documenting the nature of the call and actions 

taken because broad categories were used to capture information on the 

call. 
Page 59 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

50

Internal Controls

Conclusions

• Predictions of another close presidential election in November 2004, 

possible voter confusion over new requirements in the Help America 

Vote Act, and possible questions regarding voting equipment could 

result in the Voting Section again receiving a large number of telephone 

calls and possibly result in the use of contractors to handle calls since 

most of the Voting Section staff are monitoring election sites on election 

day. If the Voting Section collects more precise information about such 

calls, it is in a better position to assure the public that it addressed 

allegations of voting irregularities; if it documents actions taken more 

precisely, it is better able to reassure the public and Congress of its 

commitment to enforce federal voting rights statutes. 

• The Voting Section has emphasized the importance of its monitoring of 

election day activities, yet the monitoring program has not been routinely 

tracked in the ICM system, its formal process for tracking and managing 

work activities. Voting Section officials told us they were considering 

tracking this program in the future, and we believe the significance of 

this program warrants a more formal tracking of monitoring efforts and 

resources dedicated to the program.
Page 60 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Enclosure I 

51

Recommendations

Confidence in election processes is of utmost importance. To help ensure confidence in the 

integrity of our voting processes, the Voting Section plays an important role in addressing 

voting irregularities. By accurately recording and documenting its activities in as clear a 

manner as possible, the Voting Section contributes to assuring the public and Congress of 

the integrity of our voting processes.

To reassure citizens of the integrity of our election processes and to reassure the public and 

Congress of DOJ’s commitment to its responsibility to enforce federal voting rights 

statutes, we recommend that the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division 

direct the Chief of the Voting Section to

• develop and implement procedures for the November 2004 election to ensure that the Voting Section has a reliable method of tracking and documenting allegations of 

voting irregularities and actions taken to address them. Procedures could include 

more precise categories for recording types of allegations, more precise categories to 

record actions taken, development of instructions on completing the telephone logs, 

and development and implementation of training for contractors, should they be 

needed, and 

• implement a method to track and report on election monitoring program activities in the Interactive Case Management system.
Page 61 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment I 

Voting Laws Enforced by the Voting Section Relevant to Contents of Briefing 

and Its Attachments 

According to the Voting Section, to carry out its mission, the Voting Section brings 

lawsuits against states, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions to remedy denials and 

abridgements of the right to vote; defends lawsuits that the Voting Rights Act 

authorizes to be brought against the Attorney General; reviews changes in voting laws 

and procedures administratively under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and 

monitors election day activities through the assignment of federal observers under 

Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. Provided below are short descriptions of some of 

the primary voting laws enforced by the Voting Section. 

Voting Rights Act Provisions 

• Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973) 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act establishes a nationwide ban against any 

state or local election practices or procedures that deny or abridge a citizen’s 

right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority 

group.4 The Voting Rights Act provides that plaintiffs may establish a violation 

of Section 2 by demonstrating that “the political processes leading to 

nomination or election” deny members of the protected classes an equal 

opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives 

of their choice. A court, under the Voting Rights Act, may also consider the 

extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office in 

the jurisdiction, though Congress made clear that Section 2 does not confer 

upon protected classes a right to proportional representation. 

• Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973aa-1a, 

1973b(f)(4)) 

Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) are the language minority provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act and require certain covered jurisdictions to provide bilingual 

election materials and assistance based on census data pertaining to the 

population of citizens of voting age with limited English proficiency and their 

rate of illiteracy. With respect to Section 203, the Voting Rights Act requires 

jurisdictions to provide language minority assistance when certain criteria are 

met, such as when more than 5 percent of the citizens of voting age or more 

than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age are members of a single language 

minority group, and are unable to speak or understand English adequately 

enough to participate in the electoral process. 

 

4

 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973, 1973b(f)(2). 
Page 62 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment I 

• Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-6) 

Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act authorizes voting assistance for blind, 

disabled, or illiterate persons. A voter who requires assistance to vote by 

reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given 

assistance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or 

agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union. 

• Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973c) 

Under Section 5 of the Act, “covered” 5 jurisdictions may not change their 

election practices or procedures until they obtain federal “preclearance” for 

the change. The act provides for either judicial or administrative preclearance. 

Under the judicial mechanism, covered jurisdictions may seek declaratory 

judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 

that the change has neither the purpose nor the effect of discriminating against 

protected minorities in exercising their voting rights. Under the administrative 

mechanism, covered jurisdictions may seek the same determination from the 

Attorney General. The Attorney General may deny preclearance by interposing 

and objection to the proposed change within 60 days of its submission. 

 

• Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973d) 

Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act provides for the appointment of federal 

examiners by order of a federal court or, with respect to certain covered 

jurisdictions, upon certification by the Attorney General. Federal examiners 

help to register voters by determining whether a citizen meets state eligibility 

requirements and must therefore be included in the registration rolls. A federal 

court, under the Voting Rights Act, may order the appointment of federal 

examiners to any jurisdiction sued under any statute to enforce certain 

constitutional voting guarantees.6

 In covered jurisdictions, the Attorney 

General may appoint examiners upon certification that the Attorney General 

has received at least 20 meritorious written complaints of voting 

discrimination or that the Attorney General otherwise believes that the 

appointment of examiners is necessary to protect voting rights. 

 

5

 The jurisdictions targeted for “coverage” are those evidencing discriminatory voting practices, based 

upon a triggering formula, as defined in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973b). The 

Attorney General and the Director of the Census have responsibility for determining which 

jurisdictions are covered by the triggering formula, and their determinations are not reviewable in any 

court and are effective upon publication in the Federal Register. 6

 See also, section 3 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973a). 
Page 63 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment I 

• Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973f) 

Under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, federal observers may be appointed, 

upon request of the Attorney General, in any jurisdiction where an examiner is 

serving. Federal observers are to monitor elections and report whether 

persons entitled to vote were allowed to vote and whether their votes were 

properly counted. 

• Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b) 

Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act prohibits persons, whether acting under 

color of law or not, from intimidating, threatening, or coercing, or attempting 

to intimidate, threaten or coerce, any person for voting or attempting to vote. 

Section 11(b) further prohibits intimidation, threats, or coercion of those 

persons aiding other persons in voting or exercising certain powers or duties 

under the Act. 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 

1973ff to 1973ff-6) 

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA), in 

general, requires states and territories to allow absent uniformed service voters, their 

spouses and dependents, and certain other overseas voters to register and vote 

absentee in elections for federal office. UOCAVA requires, for example, that a 

presidential designee prescribe a federal write-in absentee ballot for all overseas 

voters in federal elections. The ballot is to be used if the overseas voter applies for, 

but does not receive, a state absentee ballot.7

 While state law, in general, governs the 

processing of these federal write-in ballots, UOCAVA requires that states permit their 

use in federal elections.8

 

National Voter Registration Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg to 1973gg-10) 

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) established procedures designed 

to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections Federal 

office,” while protecting “the integrity of the electoral process” and ensuring the 

maintenance of “accurate and current voter registration rolls.”9

 NVRA requires all 

states to adopt certain federal voter registration procedures, except for those states 

that have no registration requirements or that permit election-day registration with 

respect to federal elections.10 NVRA, for example, requires states to allow applicants 

for driver’s licenses to register to vote on the same form.11 NVRA also requires states 

 

7

 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-2(a). 

8

 Id. § 1973ff-1(3). 9

 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg. 

10 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2. 

11 Id. § 1973gg-3(a). 
Page 64 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment I 

to provide voter registration forms and accept completed applications at various state 

agencies, including any office in the state providing public assistance, any office in 

the state that provides state-funded disability programs, and other agencies chosen 

by the state, such as state licensing bureaus, county clerks’ offices, public schools 

and public libraries.12 NVRA also contains detailed requirements regarding state 

removal of names from federal registration rolls.13

 

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. §§ 

1973ee to 1973ee-6) 

Congress has passed legislation intended to improve access for elderly and 

handicapped individuals to registration facilities and polling places for federal 

elections. The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 

requires, with some exceptions, that political subdivisions within each state that are 

responsible for conducting elections assure that polling places and registration sits 

are accessible to handicapped and elderly voters.14 If the political subdivision is 

unable to provide an accessible polling place, it must provide an alternative means 

for casting a ballot on election day upon advance request by the voter.15 The act’s 

requirements also include, for example, that each state or political subdivision 

provide a reasonable number of accessible permanent registration facilities, and that 

each state make available certain types of voting and registration aids such as largetype instructions and information by telecommunication devices for the deaf.16

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 to 12134) 

(enforced by the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division) 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against 

qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs, activities, and services of public 

entities. It applies to all state and local governments, their departments and agencies, 

and any other instrumentalities or special purpose districts of State and local 

governments. According to the Voting Section, as construed by the courts, Title II 

requires that polling places be accessible to persons with disabilities with certain 

exceptions. 

Help America Vote Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 15301 to 15545) 

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), among other things, established a 

program to provide funds to states to replace punch care voting systems, established 

the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of federal 

elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain 

 

12 Id. §§ 1973gg-5(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)(A)(i). 13 Id. § 1973gg-6(b). 14 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ee to 1973ee-6. 

15 Id. § 1973ee-1(b)(2)(ii). 16 Id. § 1973ee-2, 1973ee-3. 
Page 65 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment I 

federal election laws and programs, and established minimum election administration 

standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the 

administration of federal elections. Certain HAVA provisions including those relating 

to voting system standards, provisional voting and voting information requirements, 

and computerized statewide voter registration lists are to be enforced by the Attorney 

General.17

 

 

17 42 U.S.C. § 15511. 
Page 66 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment II 

Role of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section in Federal Elections 

The Public Integrity Section (PIN), in conjunction with the 93 U. S. Attorneys and the 

FBI, is responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws applicable to federal election 

fraud offenses, among other things. Election fraud is conduct that corrupts the 

electoral processes for: (1) obtaining, marking, or tabulating ballots; (2) canvassing 

and certifying election results; or (3) registering voters. Election fraud can be 

committed with or without the participation of voters. Examples of election fraud 

that does not involve voter participation are ballot box stuffing, ghost voting, and 

“nursing home” frauds. Examples of election fraud that involves, at least to some 

extent, voter participation are vote buying schemes, absentee ballot fraud, voter 

intimidation schemes, migratory-voting or floating-voter schemes, and voter 

“assistance” fraud in which the voters’ wishes are ignored or not sought. According to 

a PIN official, its attorneys spend about 10 percent of their time on election fraud 

investigations and trials. 

PIN is also responsible for overseeing the U.S. Attorneys’ and the FBI’s investigation 

and prosecution of federal election fraud, one of the most common types of alleged 

federal election crimes. PIN’s oversight entails (1) advising investigators and 

prosecutors on the application of federal criminal laws to election crimes, (2) 

reviewing all major election crime investigations and all proposed election crime 

charges, and (3) assisting with implementing DOJ’s District Election Officer (DEO) 

program. Under the DEO program, PIN asks each of the 93 U.S. Attorneys to appoint 

an Assistant U.S. Attorney to serve a 2-year term as a DEO and provides training and 

guidance to DEOs on carrying out their responsibilities. DEOs, whose responsibilities 

are performed in conjunction with their other responsibilities, are to 

• screen and conduct preliminary investigations of complaints, in conjunction with 

the FBI and PIN, to determine whether they constitute potential election crimes 

and should become matters for investigation; 

• oversee the investigation and prosecution of election fraud and other election 

crimes in their districts; 

• coordinate their district’s (investigative and prosecutorial) efforts with DOJ 

headquarters prosecutors; 

• coordinate election matters with state and local election and law enforcement 

officials and make them aware of their availability to assist with election-related 

matters; 

• issue press releases to the public announcing the names and telephone numbers 

of DOJ and FBI officials to contact on election day with complaints about voting 

or election irregularities and answer telephones on election day to receive these 

complaints; and 

• supervise a team of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and FBI special agents who are 

appointed to handle election-related allegations while the polls are open on 

election day. 
Page 67 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment II 

Our analysis of information from PIN on election fraud matters showed that U.S. 

Attorneys and PIN attorneys initiated a total of 61 election fraud matters, or 

investigations, related to election years 2000 through 2003. Most of the 61 matters 

related to elections held in 2002. Matters were initiated in 28 states and 1 U.S. 

territory (the U.S. Virgin Islands) and ranged from 1 to 7 matters per state/territory 

over the 4-year period. The most frequent allegations of election fraud were for 

absentee ballot fraud and vote buying. According to PIN, many of these matters 

resulted in indictments and subsequent convictions. 

According to the Criminal Division, the information provided by PIN does not include 

all election fraud investigations that the U.S. Attorneys have initiated because 

(1) U. S. Attorneys are not required to consult with PIN for preliminary investigations 

as opposed to grand jury investigations, which require consultation; (2) PIN did not 

track election fraud investigations prior to October 2002; and (3) election fraud 

investigations are sometimes initiated under non-election statutes. 
Page 68 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment III 

Election Jurisdictions Monitored during Calendar Years 2000 through 2003

Table 1: Attorney General-Certified Election Jurisdictions Monitored during Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 

 Election jurisdictions monitored during 

State 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Hale County Hale County 

Selma (Dallas County)a Chambers County 

Lowndes County 

Arizona Apache County Apache County 

Navajo County Navajo County 

Randolph County a Randolph County 

Brooks County 

Sumter County 

Georgia 

Twiggs County 

Louisiana Tensas Parish 

Aberdeen (Monroe 

County)a 

Clarksdale 

(Coahoma 

County) b

Adams County Greenville 

(Washington 

County) 

Bolivar County Isola 

(Humphreys 

County) 

Amite County Humphreys 

County 

Grenada County Macon 

(Noxubee 

County) 

Centreville (Wilkinson 

County) 

Noxubee 

County a

Neshoba County Sunflower 

(Sunflower 

County) 

Drew (Sunflower 

County) 

Neshoba 

County 

Newton County Newton County 

 Kemper County 

 Vicksburg 

(Warren 

County) a

 Leake County 

 Webb 

(Tallahatchie 

County) 

Jones County

Mississippi 

 Winston County 

Kings County Kings County Kings County 

New York County New York 

County

New York County 

New York 

 Bronx County 

South Carolina Marion County a Ridgeville 

(Dorchester 

County) 

Ridgeville (Dorchester 

County) a

Texas Irving (Dallas County) Irving (Dallas 

County) 

Titus County 

Total jurisdictions 19 11 13 9 

Source: GAO’s analysis of election monitoring data provided by DOJ’s Voting Section. 

a

Elections were monitored by DOJ attorneys and professional staff only, not OPM federal observers. 

b

Three elections were held in Clarksdale (Coahoma County), Mississippi, in calendar year 2001. Only DOJ 

attorneys and professional staff monitored one of the three elections, held on June 5, 2001. For the remaining 

two elections held that year, DOJ attorneys and professional staff accompanied OPM observers in monitoring the 

elections. 
Page 69 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment III 

Table 2: Court-Ordered Election Jurisdictions Monitored during Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 

 Election jurisdictions monitored during 

State 2000 2001 2002 2003 

California Alameda Countya  

Illinois Cicero (Cook 

County) 

 Cicero (Cook County)b

Louisiana c c c c 

Michigan City of Hamtramck City of Hamtramck City of Hamtramck City of Hamtramck 

New Jersey Passaic County Passaic County Passaic County Passaic Countyd 

Bernalillo County Bernalillo County 

Cibola County Cibola County 

Sandoval County Sandoval County 

New Mexico 

Socorro County Socorro County 

Pennsylvania Reading (Berks 

County) b

Reading (Berks 

County)b 

Reading (Berks 

County) 

Utah San Juan Countye San Juan Countye 

Total jurisdictions 8 4 8 4 

Source: GAO’s analysis of election monitoring data provided by DOJ’s Voting Section. 

a

The court order for Alameda County, California, was in effect until January 22, 2001. 

b

Elections were monitored by DOJ attorneys and professional staff only, not OPM federal observers. 

c

A court order for St. Landry Parish was entered into on December 5, 1979. Data from the Voting Section shows 

that as of August 26, 2003, the court order was still in effect and that no elections were monitored at this parish 

during calendar years 2000 through 2003.

d

Four elections were held in Passaic County, New Jersey, in calendar year 2003. Only DOJ attorneys and 

professional staff monitored one of the four elections, held on May 13, 2003. For the remaining three elections 

held that year, DOJ attorneys and professional staff accompanied OPM observers in monitoring the elections. 

e

The court order for San Juan County, Utah, was in effect until December 31, 2002.
Page 70 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Attachment III 

Table 3: Other Election Jurisdictions Monitored during Calendar Years 2000 through 2003

 Election jurisdictions monitored during 

State 2000 2001 2002 2003 

California San Francisco County San Francisco 

County 

Connecticut Waterbury (New Haven 

County) 

 Osceola County Osceola County 

 Duval County Duval County 

 Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade County 

 Century (Escambia 

County) 

 Orange County 

Florida 

 Broward County 

Georgia Putnam 

County 

 Atlanta (Fulton County) 

Hawaii Honolulu County 

Kentucky Jefferson County 

 St. Martinville (St. 

Martin Parish) 

Baker (East Baton 

Rouge Parish) 

Louisiana 

 Winnsboro (Franklin 

Parish) 

Tangipahoa Parish 

Massachusetts Lawrence (Essex 

County) 

 Lawrence (Essex 

County) 

Michigan Flint 

(Genesee 

County) 

 

 Missouri St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis 

New Jersey Hudson County 

 Middlesex County 

New Mexico McKinley 

Countya 

 San Juan County 

 Queens Countya Queens County New York City 

(Queens County) 

New York 

 Suffolk County Suffolk County Brentwood Union 

Free School District 

(Suffolk County) 

Ohio Maple Heights 

(Cuyahoga County) 

 

South Carolina Marion 

County 

 

Forth Worth 

(Tarrant 

County) 

Bexar County Kenedy ISD (Karnes 

County) 

Texas Harris County 

 Comal County Seagraves (Gaines 

County) 

Moore County 

 Guadalupe County 

Total jurisdictions 5 9 19 13 

Source: GAO’s analysis of election monitoring data provided by DOJ’s Voting Section. 

Note: DOJ attorneys and professional staff monitored the election jurisdictions shown in this table unless 

otherwise noted. 

a

OPM federal observers also monitored elections in these counties even though the counties are not under 

Attorney General-certification or court order. 
Attachment IV 

Page 71 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Summaries of Election-Related Preliminary Investigation, Matters, and 

Cases Initiated from November 2000 to December 2003 

Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Case Initiated during November 

or December 2000 

No. Matter/Case Jurisdiction Date matter initiated DJ No. 

1 Matter Florida December 2000 Noa

2 Matter Hillsborough County, 

Florida 

November 2000 Noa

3 Matter Palm Beach County, Florida November 2000 Yes 

4 Matter Several counties in Florida November 2000 Yes 

5 Matter DeKalb County, Georgia December 2000 Yes 

6 Matter Gwinnett County, Georgia November 2000 Yes 

7 Case St. Louis, Missouri November 2000 (case filed 

in August 2002) 

Yes 

Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division. 

a For the matters that the Voting Section initiated in Florida after the 2000 election, the Voting Section initially 

used a general DJ number for all work on investigations and inquiries related to the Florida election. This number 

was opened in November 2000. Subsequently, the Voting Section assigned separate DJ numbers for individual 

matters. The 2000 matters in Florida and Hillsborough County, Florida, were inadvertently not given an individual 

DJ number.

Summary of Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Case Initiated during November or December 

2000 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s actions 

taken to address 

allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

1. The Voting Section 

received a large number of 

complaints alleging that 

Florida voters arrived at the 

polls expecting to be properly 

registered to vote, but were 

told that their names were not 

on the voter rolls. Some 

people who tried to vote but 

whose names were not on the 

voter rolls were often told to 

stand in another line so 

election officials could be 

called to verify their 

registrations, but many voters 

alleged that office phones 

were busy all day and 

registrations could not be 

verified. Some voters 

apparently left and some 

remained at the polls until they 

closed, at which time they 

were apparently told they 

could not vote because the 

polls were closed. 

Voting Section staff 

contacted individuals 

mentioned in complaints 

that the NAACP had 

forwarded to determine 

the nature of their alleged 

registration problems. 

Voting Section staff 

monitored election-related 

hearings and lawsuits in 

Florida to see what steps 

the state was going to 

take. The Voting Section 

reviewed election reform 

legislation that Florida 

enacted in 2001. 

Interviews by Voting 

Section staff with 

individuals mentioned in 

the complaints did not 

reveal a distinct pattern of 

registration problems in 

any one Florida county 

sufficient to warrant 

litigation, but taken as a 

whole the registration 

complaints seemed to 

indicate general problems 

with the state of 

compliance with NVRA 

provisions for clarity and 

processing of voter 

registration forms, 

transmission of the forms 

to election officials, 

education of registration 

personnel, adherence to 

NVRA registration 

deadlines, maintenance 

of registration lists, ability 

to verify registration at the 

polls, and education of 

voters, state registration 

personnel, election 

officials, and poll workers. 

Florida enacted 

election reform 

legislation in 2001 

requiring, among 

other things, that the 

state implement a 

statewide voter 

registration 

database, permit 

provisional voting, 

and provide funds to 

counties for voter 

education and poll 

worker training. The 

Voting Section 

reviewed this law 

under Section 5 of 

the Voting Rights 

Act and precleared it 

on March 28, 2002. 

With respect to this 

investigation, the 

Voting Section noted 

that these reforms 

should help address 

the problems alleged 

to have occurred in 

2000. While the 

Voting Section 

further noted that the 
Attachment IV 

Page 72 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

 new state legislation 

did not appear 

specifically to 

address all the 

NVRA-related 

issues, such as the 

voter registration 

process and 

education of motor 

vehicle agency and 

other state agency 

employees 

regarding state 

registration 

procedures and 

requirements in 

federal law, such 

issues could be 

addressed through 

design and 

implementation of 

the forthcoming 

election procedures 

to carry out the 

requirements of the 

new law. Therefore, 

the Voting Section 

determined that it 

would monitor 

Florida’s NVRA 

actions in the future 

in light of the new 

state legislation and 

ongoing federal 

legislative efforts in 

election reform 

which might also 

impact Florida’s 

election procedures. 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter 

because, based on 

its monitoring of the 

situation and the 

provisions in the 

state law pertinent to 

registration that had 

been precleared, it 

concluded that the 

problems which 

occurred in the 2000 

election were being 

adequately 

addressed. 

2. The NAACP National Voter 

Fund alleged (1) that on 

Election Day 2000, sheriff’s 

deputies in marked cars in 

Hillsborough County, Florida, 

blocked access to a polling 

place, (2) that their presence 

Voting Section staff met 

with, among others, 

officials from the county 

sheriff’s office and several 

local residents, and spoke 

with a poll watcher to 

gather additional 

The sheriff’s office 

reported that the 

presence of sheriff’s 

deputies near the polling 

place was related to a 

burglary nearby. One of 

the sheriff’s deputies 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter 

because the 

complaint lacked 

merit since there 

was no evidence on 

any of the 
Attachment IV 

Page 73 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

had an intimidating effect on 

voters, and (3) that at least on 

one occasion they harassed a 

voter. An African-American 

man approached sheriff’s 

deputies after they left the 

scene of a burglary 

complaining that he was not 

allowed to vote. 

observations. learned two days after the 

election that the same 

man who had approached 

the deputies on Election 

Day returned to the 

polling place and 

successfully voted. A poll 

worker observed the 

presence of the sheriff’s 

cars around the same 

time they were 

responding to the 

burglary, and observed 

that no voter had been 

deterred from voting due 

to the police activity. 

allegations raised. 

3. It was alleged that the 

design of the butterfly ballot in 

Palm Beach County, Florida, 

violated federal voting rights 

laws. 

The Voting Section 

opened a matter related to 

this issue and reviewed 

federal law for which the 

Section had enforcement 

authority to determine if 

any action was 

appropriate. 

The Voting Section 

determined that there was 

no basis for asserting 

federal jurisdiction. 

The Voting Section 

concluded that 

because it had no 

jurisdiction 

concerning this 

matter, no further 

action was 

warranted. In 

addition, according 

to the Voting 

Section, the new 

Florida election 

reform law should 

help to alleviate 

faulty ballot design 

by providing for 

greater oversight of 

ballot design. 

4. Four state troopers with the 

Florida Department of 

Highway Safety and Motor 

Vehicles ran a driver’s license 

checkpoint on Election Day 

2000 in Leon County, Florida. 

This checkpoint was located 

near (about a mile from) a 

voting precinct. Another 

checkpoint was held in Bay 

and Escambia Counties. 

According to a highway patrol 

official, this checkpoint was 

not located near a voting 

precinct. 

The Voting Section 

opened a matter to 

investigate this issue and 

asked the Florida State 

Office of the Attorney 

General about the 

checkpoint in Leon 

County. A Voting Section 

attorney also spoke with 

an African-American voter 

who was stopped at one of 

the driver’s license 

checkpoints. 

The Voting Section’s 

investigation revealed 

that the Florida Highway 

Patrol had set up a traffic 

check stop close to a 

polling place (about a 

mile away) located in a 

predominantly AfricanAmerican neighborhood. 

The Voting Section 

investigation also 

indicated that the 

troopers’ traffic stop plan 

had not been preapproved by their 

commander, as is the 

standard procedure. 

Further investigation 

revealed that the traffic 

checkpoint was in effect 

for about 3 hours, and a 

higher number of white 

drivers were stopped than 

African-American drivers. 

According the Voting 

Section, an AfricanAmerican voter who was 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter 

because there was 

no evidence of 

intimidation or racial 

intent to affect or 

intimidate voters. 
Attachment IV 

Page 74 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

stopped was treated 

courteously and 

proceeded to vote without 

incident. 

5. A U.S. Representative 

raised concerns regarding 

long voting delays in 

predominantly AfricanAmerican precincts in DeKalb 

County, Georgia during the 

November 2000 election. It 

was alleged that there were 

no corresponding delays in 

majority white precincts. In 

one predominantly AfricanAmerican precinct, several 

hundred voters apparently left 

the precinct without voting 

after waiting in line for several 

hours. In districts with a 

majority of white residents, 

voting lines apparently moved 

quickly with some people 

being able to vote in less than 

15 minutes. In addition, two 

people complained about 

possible voting irregularities 

during a March 2001 election. 

A Voting Section attorney 

met with the following in 

Georgia to address these 

concerns: (1) the DeKalb 

County Elections 

Supervisor, (2) the 

Chairman of the DeKalb 

County Elections Board, 

(3) the Gwinnett County 

Elections Supervisor, (4) 

the president of the 

DeKalb County NAACP, 

(5) the Assistant DeKalb 

County Attorney, and (6) 

one of the representative’s 

staff members. The Voting 

Section attorney received 

and reviewed documents 

from both counties’ 

elections departments 

regarding the November 

2000 election. 

The Voting Section 

attorney requested 

additional documents from 

the Assistant DeKalb 

County Attorney and 

DeKalb County Elections 

Supervisor to determine if 

there was an unequal 

division of resources 

among African-American 

and white districts. These 

documents outlined the 

budget for expenses 

related to the elections 

from 1998 through 2000. 

The Voting Section 

attorney also spoke with 

the president of the 

DeKalb County NAACP 

and the U.S. Attorney for 

the Northern District of 

Georgia. 

The Voting Section 

attorney spoke with the 

two persons alleging fraud 

during the March 2001 

election. 

The Voting Section 

attorney’s analysis of the 

documents that DeKalb 

County provided revealed 

that most of the county’s 

polling places that stayed 

open past closing time 

were located in majority 

African-American 

precincts. The polls’ 

extended hours almost 

uniformly resulted from 

there being large 

numbers of people in line 

as well as insufficient 

numbers of poll workers 

and voting machines. The 

attorney also determined 

that there had been no 

unequal division of 

electoral resources 

between majority white 

and majority AfricanAmerican precincts. 

According to 

investigations of the 

November 2000 election 

by the county’s elections 

department, the area 

manager and his 

assistants at the main 

precinct of concern failed 

to contact the precinct 

office about the long lines 

and insufficient voting 

machines. The former 

area manager also 

denied the poll workers’ 

requests for additional 

voting machines, stating 

none were available. 

The president of the 

DeKalb County NAACP, 

staff in the office of the 

U.S. Attorney for the 

Northern District of 

Georgia, and the DeKalb 

County Elections 

Supervisor did not receive 

complaints related to 

Election Day in DeKalb 

County. 

With respect to the March 

2001 allegations, the 

Voting Section attorney 

noted that the two 

The county 

implemented the 

following changes 

for the March 2001 

election: (1) 

increased the 

number of voting 

machines, (2) 

assigned additional 

poll workers and 

managers, (3) 

assigned at least 10 

additional staff 

members to answer 

telephones at the 

Elections 

Department and 

installed 10 more 

telephone lines, and 

(4) gave the 

Elections 

Department and 

area managers cell 

phones in case 

regular telephone 

lines were busy. The 

Voting Section 

determined that a 

dramatic 

improvement 

resulted from these 

remedial actions 

and, as a result, 

closed the matter. 
Attachment IV 

Page 75 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

persons could not identify 

the precincts where 

alleged irregularities 

occurred, and that they 

did not have allegations 

of racial intimidation or 

vote suppression. The 

Voting Section attorney 

determined that their 

complaints seemed to 

concern Georgia state 

law, suggested that they 

explore their state law 

remedies, suggested that 

they contact the county 

elections department and 

the office of Georgia’s 

Secretary of State, and 

asked them to keep the 

Voting Section attorney 

informed of 

developments. 

6. The Voting Section 

received information that 

people in Gwinnett County, 

Georgia who had registered to 

vote via the Georgia 

Department of Public Safety 

(DPS) were not on the voter 

registration rolls and were not 

allowed to vote. DPS operated 

vehicle registration sites in 

Georgia. Subsequently, DPS 

began the process of 

transitioning National Voter 

Registration Act (NVRA) 

responsibilities to the state’s 

newly created Department of 

Motor Vehicles (DMV). It was 

alleged that voters were 

turned away from the polls 

and were not offered 

provisional ballots. Some 

voters were told to go to the 

county registration office, but 

officials there told them they 

were not allowed to vote. 

The Voting Section spoke 

with staff in the Georgia 

Attorney General’s office 

and the Georgia DPS and 

DMV, a voter who raised 

the allegations, and the 

Deputy Director of 

Elections in the Secretary 

of State’s Office. The 

Voting Section monitored 

the transition of NVRA 

responsibilities from DPS 

to the new DMV from April 

2001 to April 2002. 

The Voting Section’s 

investigation revealed 

that the problem likely 

arose from the DPS 

paperless system to 

obtain and renew a 

driver’s license. The 

process seemed to result 

in people believing they 

had been registered to 

vote when they had not. A 

person who indicated the 

intention to register to 

vote did not receive any 

confirmation at the time of 

the transaction. 

The Voting Section’s 

investigation revealed 

that since DPS 

implemented a paperless 

system in 1996, the 

percentage of those who 

registered to vote at DPS 

sites when they applied or 

renewed their licenses 

had dropped almost every 

year. There was also 

evidence that DPS 

officials knew of concerns 

regarding the agency’s 

paperless registration 

system from its 

implementation. 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter in 

April 2002 mostly 

because the state 

had created a new 

agency, the 

Department of Motor 

Vehicle Safety, to 

which responsibility 

for voter registration 

was in the process 

of being transitioned. 

The Voting Section 

determined this 

system would 

remedy the problem. 

7. DOJ, on behalf of the 

United States, alleged that the 

St. Louis Board of Election 

Commissioners’ (referred to 

hereafter as the Board) 

placement of eligible voters on 

Following an investigation, 

DOJ filed a complaint with 

the U.S. District Court in 

the Eastern District of 

Missouri on August 14, 

2002. On the same date, 

The Voting Section 

alleged that the state was 

in violation of NVRA and 

filed a complaint. 

The consent order 

gives court 

jurisdiction over the 

proceeding until 

January 31, 2005. 

The consent order 
Attachment IV 

Page 76 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

inactive status, when 

combined with election-day 

procedures that inactive voters 

were required to follow to 

restore their active voter 

status and vote during the 

November 2000 and March 

2001 elections, constituted a 

removal of those voters from 

the voter registration rolls in 

violation of Section 8 of 

NVRA. As of the November 

2000 general election, more 

than 54,000 registered voters 

in St. Louis had been 

designated as inactive and 

excluded from the lists of 

eligible voters following a 

series of mail canvasses that 

the Board conducted of its 

voter registration rolls. These 

mail canvasses did not include 

the notices required by 

Section 8(d)(2) of NVRA. The 

Board did not make an effort 

to notify inactive voters that 

their registration status had 

changed, that their names 

would not appear on the voter 

registration lists, or that they 

would face more 

administrative efforts on 

election day before being 

permitted to vote. 

As a result, certain eligible, but 

inactive voters, were not able 

to vote in the November 2000 

general election and March 

2001 municipal primary 

election due to the lack of an 

adequate infrastructure (i.e., 

insufficient phone lines, 

working telephones, and staff) 

in place to enable voters to 

complete the verification 

procedures required by the 

Board on election day. For the 

November 2000 election, over 

300 eligible inactive voters 

were able to obtain 

authorization to vote after 

going to the Board’s 

headquarters as instructed by 

the election judges. 

DOJ entered into a 

consent order with the city 

of St. Louis. 

requires the Board 

to initiate 

procedures to 

remedy the 

problems that 

occurred during the 

November 2000 

election, such as 

improved methods 

of notifying voters 

who are moved to 

an inactive status, 

improved methods 

of canvassing, and 

improved resources 

to process eligible 

voters not included 

on the rolls on 

Election Day. This 

relief included 

requiring that every 

polling place have a 

complete list of 

registered voters, 

including inactive 

voters, and a polling 

place locator to 

assist voters in 

finding their correct 

precincts. 

The consent decree 

is valid until January 

31, 2005. The case 

remains open to 

monitor 

implementation of 

the consent order. 
Attachment IV 

Page 77 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Cases Initiated during Calendar Year 2001 

No. Matter/Case Jurisdiction Date matter initiated DJ No. 

1 Matter Florida March 2001b Yes 

2 Matter Florida June 2001b Yes 

3 Matter Florida June 2001b Yes 

4 Matter Florida August 2001b No c

5 Matter Broward County, Florida October 2001 b Yes 

6 Matter Miami-Dade County, Florida June 2001 b Yes 

7 Matter Miami-Dade County, Florida June 2001 b Yes 

8 Matter (election 

monitoring) 

New York, New York July 2001 Yes 

9 Matter Georgetown County, South 

Carolina 

April 2001 Yes 

10 Matter Seagraves, Texas July 2001 Yes 

11 Case Miami-Dade County, Florida March 2001 (case filed in June 

2002) b

Yes 

12 Case Orange County, Florida June 2001 (case filed in June 

2002) b

Yes 

13 Case Osceola County, Florida June 2001 (case filed in June 

2002) b

Yes 

14 Case Berks County, Pennsylvania March 2001 (case filed in 

February 2003) 

Yes 

15 Case Tennessee April 2001 (case filed in 

September 2002) 

Yes 

Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division. 

b

 Each of these Florida matters was initiated in the period shortly after the November 2000 election—i.e., in 

November or December 2000—and was reported under the general DJ number for Florida discussed previously 

(see note a under the summary table for November and December 2000 and note c below). The above dates are 

the dates they received individual DJ numbers. 

c

 For the matters that the Voting Section initiated in Florida after the 2000 election, the Voting Section initially 

used a general DJ number for all work on investigations and inquiries related to the Florida election. This number 

was opened in November 2000. Subsequently, the Voting Section assigned separate DJ numbers for individual 

matters. The 2000 matters in Florida and Hillsborough County, Florida, were inadvertently not given an individual 

DJ number.
Attachment IV 

Page 78 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Summary of Election-Related Closed Matters and Open Cases Initiated during Calendar Year 2001 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

1. There were allegations 

made by students at 

Florida A&M University 

(FAMU) in Tallahassee 

(Leon County), Florida, 

and Bethune-Cookman 

College in Daytona Beach, 

Florida, regarding 

discriminatory treatment of 

African-American students 

in the registration process 

or at the polls. First-time 

voters, apparently 

unfamiliar with the 

registration process, had 

greater difficulty 

registering to vote. Older 

students did not seem to 

have such difficulty. 

 

The Voting Section’s 

investigation consisted 

of phone interviews with 

Bethune-Cookman 

students, on-campus 

interviews of FAMU 

students and student 

government leaders, 

and a review of 

statements taken by a 

representative of the 

Service Employees 

International Union legal 

department working in 

association with the 

NAACP. 

A Voting Section 

attorney interviewed 

three students on 

FAMU’s campus who 

claimed to experience 

difficulty voting, but 

were able to vote. The 

Voting Section attorney 

left his contact 

information with 

FAMU’s student 

government association 

for any individuals who 

wanted to give 

statements regarding 

voting problems but 

could not meet with the 

attorney. 

The Voting Section 

attorney attempted to 

contact all ten students 

from BethuneCookman, but was only 

able to speak with 

three. The attorney sent 

letters to the remaining 

students but never 

received responses to 

the letters. 

The Voting Section 

attorney followed up 

with his contacts at 

FAMU, but the Voting 

Section did not receive 

any response from 

students to its efforts to 

conduct further 

inquiries. The student 

government association 

The Voting Section 

determined that the 

problems were likely 

attributable to voter 

confusion, not racial 

animosity. The Voting 

Section noted that the 

incidents of the three 

FAMU students who 

successfully voted were 

isolated incidents, and 

since each student 

ultimately voted, the 

problems they suggested 

did not suggest a pattern 

of intimidation or 

attempted vote denial. 

The Voting Section 

concluded that most of 

the allegations were likely 

to have been the result of 

students not being 

familiar with the voting 

process. Many students 

had registered at their 

permanent home 

addresses and did not 

understand they had to 

re-register in Leon 

County. The Voting 

Section found that voter 

inexperience and 

confusion were to blame 

at Bethune-Cookman, not 

any pattern of 

discriminatory treatment. 

The Voting Section closed 

the matter because it 

lacked merit based on the 

evidence gathered during 

the investigation. 
Attachment IV 

Page 79 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

also posted and 

distributed flyers and 

sent out internet notices 

with the attorney’s 

contact information. 

Neither the attorney nor 

the student association 

at FAMU received 

additional allegations of 

voting irregularities. 

2. Beginning in 1999, 

under Florida state law, 

the state contracted with a 

firm to compare names of 

registered voters with 

names of convicted felons 

who under Florida law 

were disqualified from 

voting. The state elections 

division sent lists of felon 

names for each of 

Florida’s 67 counties to 

election officials in those 

counties for investigation 

and purging. The Voting 

Section was concerned 

that county and state 

actions with regards to the 

purging process may have 

been flawed and 

impermissible under 

NVRA. The Voting Section 

questioned whether 

eligible voters had been 

inadvertently removed 

from the voter rolls. 

 

The Voting Section 

reviewed testimony 

from Florida election 

officials and 

representatives of the 

company that compiled 

the database and 

obtained information on 

how the lists of felons’ 

names were matched to 

voter registration lists. 

The Voting Section also 

did extensive additional 

investigation to 

determine whether the 

method in which Florida 

compiled a list of felons 

and how they purged 

these felons violated 

any of the statutes 

enforced by the Voting 

Section. 

In addition, the Voting 

Section reviewed 

Florida’s 2001 election 

reform law pursuant to 

Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act. This review 

included provisions of 

the new law related to 

the voter purge 

procedures that were 

the subject of the 

investigation. 

The evidence gathered 

by the Voting Section 

showed that the matching 

at the state level was set 

up in a way that it 

captured names that 

were less than definite 

matches. The Voting 

Section also learned that 

after receiving the stategenerated list, counties’ 

actions varied. For 

example, some counties 

refused to use the list 

because they perceived it 

to contain many errors. 

Other counties sent 

letters to all the people on 

the state’s list telling them 

that their names were 

matched to those of 

disqualified felons, and 

they would be required to 

show their eligibility to 

vote or be removed from 

the rolls. The Voting 

Section determined that 

evidence gathered for this 

matter was inconclusive, 

but showed there was a 

possibility that voters 

could have been removed 

in violation of federal law. 

With respect to the 

Section 5 review of the 

2001 election reform law, 

this law was precleared 

on March 28, 2002 after 

careful review. 

Preclearance was 

granted only after 

receiving explicit 

assurances from the 

Attorney General of 

Florida describing how 

the law would be 

implemented with respect 

to voter purge lists 

The Voting Section closed 

the matter in April 2002. 

The closing memo noted 

that the new statute 

appears to require no 

additional procedures for 

accurate name matching 

compared to the old law. It 

also noted that the new 

statute appeared to codify 

a procedure used by many 

counties under prior law 

where voters whose 

names are matched by the 

state must affirmatively 

prove their eligibility to 

avoid removal. 

However, the Voting 

Section closing memo also 

noted that the new voter 

purge procedures (which 

included the assurances 

made by the Attorney 

General of Florida to 

protect voters from 

erroneous purging) had 

been precleared on March 

28, 2002. It further stated 

that the Florida felon 

purge statute in effect at 

the time of the 2000 

election no longer existed 

and that any litigation 

against it based on how 

that law was implemented 

would be moot. Based on 

these two factors, the 

matter was closed. 

The memo also stated that 

the Voting Section may 

open a new investigation 

depending on any 

information received 

regarding the operation of 

the new statute and 

related regulations. 

Finally, the closing memo 
Attachment IV 

Page 80 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

generated by the state 

pursuant to the new state 

law. These assurances 

included (1) a statement 

that there would not be a 

presumption in favor of 

the accuracy of the 

statewide database, and 

any presumption would 

be in favor of the voter 

and (2) the appearance of 

a voter’s name on any 

voter purge list of 

potentially ineligible 

voters generated by the 

state would not by itself 

confirm a voter’s 

ineligibility, and that the 

burden of determining 

ineligibility was on county 

supervisors of elections, 

a burden which must 

meet the highest degree 

of proof. These 

assurances were 

specifically noted when 

preclearance was issued 

by the Voting Section. 

also made note of pending 

litigation in the case of 

NAACP v. Harris, which 

included allegations that 

the voter purge list used in 

2000 violated the NVRA. 

Subsequent to the April 

2002 closing of this 

matter, a settlement was 

reached in this case which 

required new procedures 

for how the state was to 

complete its voter purge 

lists in the future. This 

change in voter purging 

procedures was 

precleared under Section 

5 of the Voting Rights Act 

in 2003. 

3. A newspaper article 

provided to DOJ by a 

member of the U.S. 

Senate provided 

information that officials in 

several Florida counties 

disabled a feature in 

optical scan voting 

machines used during the 

November 2000 election 

to detect ballots spoiled by 

over-voting and allow 

voters to correct the error. 

A Voting Section 

attorney analyzed rates 

of ballot spoilage in 

counties that had 

disabled the spoilage 

detection function in 

their optical scan 

machines and 

compared those rates to 

those of ballot spoilage 

in counties that had not 

disabled this function. 

The investigation found 

that Florida counties with 

optical scan machines 

that activated the 

spoilage detection 

technology had lower 

rates of ballot spoilage 

than counties that did not 

have or did not use the 

technology. Some 

counties that had this 

detection feature disabled 

it on their voting 

machines. There were 

also isolated instances 

where the technology 

was either disabled or 

failed to function properly. 

The Voting Section 

determined that there 

was no evidence that the 

disabling of this feature 

was done with a 

discriminatory effect or 

purpose. 

The Voting Section closed 

this matter because it 

found no evidence 

indicating a violation of 

federal law. Moreover, 

election reform legislation 

enacted in Florida in May 

of 2001 requires all 

counties to acquire voting 

machines with precinctbased spoilage detection 

technology by September 

2002. The election reform 

law also requires counties 

to activate this technology 

during voting. The 

Attorney General, under 

Section 5 of the VRA, 

precleared election 

procedures provided for in 

this legislation. 

4. The U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights issued a 

report that posed 

questions regarding 

The Voting Section 

reviewed the findings of 

the Commission’s report 

regarding ballot 

Several analyses 

suggested patterns of 

racial disparity in the 

ballot rejection practices 

The Voting Section 

concluded that there was 

no basis for bringing a 

Section 2 lawsuit against 
Attachment IV 

Page 81 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

spoiled ballots in Florida 

during the November 2000 

election. The Commission 

questioned whether the 

racial disparity in spoiled 

ballots that occurred in 

Florida in 2000 was a 

violation of Section 2 of 

the Voting Rights Act. The 

Commission stated that 

the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) should 

specifically investigate 

whether the racial 

disparity in spoiled ballots 

violated Section 2. 

rejection disparity and 

several newspaper 

studies of the spoilage 

issue. It then prepared a 

factual and legal 

analysis of issues 

raised in the 

Commission’s report to 

determine if a Section 2 

violation had occurred. 

of a few Florida counties 

during one election. 

However, the Voting 

Section determined that 

the disparity alone did not 

meet the standards for a 

Section 2 lawsuit. The 

Voting Section noted that 

more investigation, 

analysis, and careful 

thought would have to be 

given to the causes of 

ballot rejection problems 

in Florida, the actual level 

of racial disparities, and 

the role played by state 

and county officials 

before a decision could 

be made concerning a 

Section 2 violation. 

Florida on the basis of the 

evidence of racial 

disparities found in 

spoilage rates. 

Furthermore, it was 

determined that because 

Florida’s 2001 election 

reform law required new 

election machines, 

significant steps had been 

taken by Florida towards 

remedying the election 

problems with respect to 

voting machines. The 

Voting Section also 

concluded that it would 

make sense to monitor the 

actions of Florida and its 

counties over the 

subsequent few years to 

see whether they would 

follow through in acquiring 

new voting machines with 

error detection 

technologies and 

educating voters to see 

what impact such actions 

would have on ballot 

rejection rates. 

5. DOJ received 

allegations of inaccessible 

polling places and voting 

booths in Broward County, 

Florida. 

The Voting Section 

opened a matter and 

looked into the county’s 

compliance with the 

Voting Accessibility for 

the Elderly and 

Handicapped Act 

(VAEHA). The Voting 

Section sent a letter to 

the Broward County 

Supervisor of Elections 

requesting specific 

information regarding 

procedures in place to 

ensure the physical 

accessibility of polling 

places for federal 

elections pursuant to 

VAEHA. 

Attorneys from the 

Voting Section and the 

Civil Rights Division’s 

Disability Rights Section 

met with the county 

supervisor of elections 

and the supervisor’s 

attorney to discuss 

physical accessibility of 

polling places and 

Based on information that 

the county provided, the 

Voting Section found that 

the county conducted 

polling place surveys in 

1999 and conducted 

another survey devised to 

address the problem of 

disabled voters’ access to 

the polls. The 

investigation revealed that 

the people conducting the 

surveys had no training in 

accessibility standards. 

The county provided the 

Voting Section attorney 

with a memo and a plan 

stating that Florida 

intended to purchase new 

touch-screen voting 

machines with an audio 

component for the blind or 

visually impaired, with one 

such voting machine 

available per precinct. 

As a result of the problems 

experienced in the 2000 

election, the Florida 

legislature enacted 

changes to its accessibility 

requirements for polling 

places and voting 

machines. In light of this 

and the Voting Section’s 

determination that the new 

Florida law went further 

than the requirements in 

VAEHA, the investigation 

was closed. 
Attachment IV 

Page 82 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

purchase of new voting 

machines. The Voting 

Section and Disability 

Rights Section’s 

attorneys requested 

documentation such as 

copies of county 

surveys covering 

accessibility 

procedures, a list of 

polling place changes 

spurred by accessibility 

concerns; a list of 

disability community 

contacts with whom 

officials from the office 

of the county supervisor 

of elections met, and 

procedures for 

reassignment or 

curbside voting. The 

county provided both 

attorneys with a 

demonstration of the 

new touch-screen voting 

machines with an audio 

component for the blind 

or visually impaired. The 

Voting Section attorney 

also contacted the 

county supervisor of 

election’s attorney 

requesting information 

on VAEHA compliance. 

6. It was alleged that a 

crowd of persons 

attempted to intimidate 

election officials on the 

canvassing board of 

Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, during the 

presidential vote recount 

after the November 2000 

election. It was alleged 

that this group’s activities 

at the county courthouse 

during the recount 

intimidated the canvassing 

board into abandoning the 

recount. 

The Voting Section 

attorney reviewed the 

allegations along with 

numerous accounts of 

events that transpired 

that day. 

Based on the information 

gathered, the Voting 

Section determined that 

no cause of action existed 

under the civil 

enforcement provisions of 

the federal voting laws 

that the Voting Section is 

charged with enforcing. 

The Voting Section 

concluded that no further 

investigation was 

warranted and closed the 

matter. 

7. There were allegations 

made after the November 

2000 election that ballot 

boxes in two 

predominantly minority 

precincts in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, had not 

been picked up on 

The Voting Section 

attorney examined voter 

turnout data for the two 

precincts in question. 

The Voting Section 

attorney also held 

discussions with the 

First Assistant County 

The discussions that the 

Voting Section conducted 

with counsel for MiamiDade County indicated 

that all of the county’s 

ballot boxes had been 

accounted for on that day. 

According to the county 

The Voting Section closed 

the matter because it 

lacked merit. According to 

the Voting Section, the 

evidence that the Voting 

Section collected made it 

seem doubtful that there 

were any missing ballot 
Attachment IV 

Page 83 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

Election Day, and that 

they were allegedly later 

found in the polling places. 

Attorney in Miami-Dade 

County, who in turn 

contacted the county 

supervisor of elections. 

supervisor of elections, 

the boxes that were later 

located in the two 

precincts contained 

election supplies, not 

ballots. Analysis of data 

from the two precincts 

indicated that both 

precincts reported voter 

turnout rates in the 

expected range given the 

county’s overall turnout 

rate. 

boxes. 

8. The Voting Section 

opened this matter in 

August 2001 to initiate the 

monitoring of an election 

in New York City in 

November 2001 on the 

basis of observations 

made during the 

November 2000 election. 

Thirty federal observers 

and seven DOJ staff 

members monitored 

polling place procedures 

during municipal general 

elections in 2001 in Kings 

County (also known as 

Brooklyn) and in Bronx 

County. The Attorney 

General had previously 

certified both counties for 

federal observers 

pursuant to Section 6 of 

the Voting Rights Act. 

Also, 17 federal observers 

and 5 Voting Section 

attorneys monitored 

polling place procedures 

during the general election 

in 2002 in Brooklyn. 

In pre-election activities, 

two Civil Rights Division 

attorneys met with 

officials from the New 

York City Board of 

Elections to discuss 

concerns about 

preparations for the 

election, including the 

need for poll worker 

training for the election, 

the need for voting 

machines to 

accommodate the 

number of registered 

voters, the need for 

Spanish-language voter 

registration materials for 

poll workers to distribute 

minority language 

assistance, and 

consolidation of polling 

places. A Voting 

Section attorney also 

attended four pollworker training classes. 

After the election, the 

Voting Section 

attorneys met with 

several Board of 

Elections officials to 

debrief them. 

Thirty federal observers 

monitored activities at 31 

polling places in Bronx 

County and 12 polling 

places in Brooklyn County 

during the municipal 

general elections. Three 

staff members from DOJ’s 

Civil Rights Division and 

one AUSA for the 

Southern District of New 

York traveled with the 

observers to provide 

additional monitoring. 

Two Voting Section staff 

members visited six 

polling places in both 

counties. During the 

election, observers found 

that materials to be 

displayed to inform 

Spanish-speaking voters 

of assistance to interpret 

the ballot were not always 

clear or in public view at 

nearly half of the polling 

places in both counties. 

The Board of Election 

officials were informed of 

this and took action. 

These officials noted that 

it was up to each polling 

place inspector to display 

the materials they are 

given. Poll workers were 

observed asking voters 

for identification, which 

was in violation of New 

York State law; Board of 

Election officials were 

notified of this and went to 

the polling place to 

address the issue. DOJ 

monitors did not witness 

any Spanish-speaking 

poll workers at the 12 

The Voting Section closed 

the matter because the 

monitoring of the election 

was completed. Voting 

Section staff could not 

comprehensively identify 

failure by individual poll 

workers to post or provide 

all materials to Spanishspeaking voters because 

of the large number of 

election districts—nearly 

2,000—and the small 

number of observers. 

However, the Voting 

Section found that the 

Board of Elections was 

very responsive to all of 

the Voting Section’s 

concerns and sent Board 

officials to places where 

problems arose, usually 

within 30 minutes. 
Attachment IV 

Page 84 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

polling locations visited in 

Brooklyn; this was 

discussed with Board of 

Election officials; 

however, DOJ officials 

found that appropriate 

language assistance was 

available in both counties. 

Seventeen federal 

observers and five 

attorneys from the Civil 

Rights Division monitored 

polling place procedures 

during the general 

election in Kings County. 

 The Voting Section 

attorney who attended 

four poll-worker training 

classes found that the 

classes appropriately 

addressed minority 

language issues and 

assistance. 

9. The Voting Section 

received an allegation 

from an African-American 

voter that a supervisor at a 

voting precinct in 

Georgetown County, 

South Carolina, 

discriminated against 

African-American voters 

during the 2000 

presidential election. The 

voter alleged that the 

supervisor treated AfricanAmerican voters in a rude 

and discriminating 

manner. In talking to the 

complainant and others, it 

was learned that there 

were also alleged voter 

registration problems 

during the 2000 election 

related to precinct 

changes and the local 

DMV. 

The Voting Section 

attorney interviewed 

officials with the 

Georgetown County 

Board of Registration 

and Elections, 

representatives of the 

Republican and 

Democratic parties, 

voters, and an attorney 

representing the county. 

The Voting Section 

attorney also 

interviewed an official 

who managed the 

Georgetown County 

DMV office regarding 

the second-hand 

allegations from a 

Democratic party 

representative 

regarding possible 

registration problems at 

the local DMV. 

After interviewing the 

DMV official and 

examining the forms 

that the DMV provides 

to drivers applying for 

new licenses to 

simultaneously allow 

them to register to vote, 

the Voting Section 

Voting Section staff wrote 

to the Voter Registration 

and Election Commission 

for Georgetown County 

outlining the allegations 

concerning the rude 

treatment by the poll 

worker and the Voting 

Section’s findings and 

asked the commission 

how it planned to 

respond. 

The county’s Voter 

Registration and Election 

Commission responded in 

writing that the election 

supervisor was informed 

by letter that she would 

be reassigned to another 

precinct and not permitted 

to serve in a supervisory 

capacity for the June 11, 

2002, election. She 

decided not to work the 

June 2002 election. 

Other issues examined in 

this investigation were not 

raised with the county in 

this letter. With respect to 

the precinct change 

allegations, the Voting 

Section learned that 

confusion as to proper 

The Voting Section closed 

the matter on March 9, 

2004. As of that date, the 

Voting Section had not 

received additional 

complaints concerning the 

treatment of AfricanAmerican voters in 

Georgetown County or 

about voting registration 

issues previously 

investigated. According to 

the complainant, the 

election held on June 

11,2002, went smoothly. 
Attachment IV 

Page 85 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

attorney noted that the 

form on the DMV 

driver’s license 

application did not 

contain a box for people 

to check if they wanted 

to register to vote and 

that this might not 

adhere to the NVRA 

provision for a 

simultaneous process to 

apply for a driver’s 

license and register to 

vote. In addition, in the 

interview with the 

employee in the local 

DMV office, the Voting 

Section attorney 

learned that they may 

have been only asking 

people applying for new 

drivers’ licenses, not 

people renewing their 

licenses, if they wanted 

to register to vote. 

However, this employee 

further informed the 

Voting Section attorney 

that in October 2000 

she received 

instructions from the 

head of the state DMV 

to ask every person 

who was applying for a 

driver’s license whether 

he or she wished to 

register to vote, and she 

followed that instruction 

through the election. 

voting precincts was likely 

the result of a change in 

the method of identifying 

addresses of voters. With 

respect to allegations 

about the DMV 

procedures, the Voting 

Section received no 

complaints from voters 

who indicated that the 

alleged problems at the 

DMV existed or resulted 

in denying them the right 

to vote. In addition, after 

the examination of the 

DMV forms and interview 

with the local DMV 

employee, it was 

concluded that there did 

not appear to be a 

violation of the NVRA. 

10. The Voting Section 

received a complaint 

alleging that the 

Seagraves Independent 

School District and the 

City of Seagraves, both in 

Texas, held elections 

without bilingual judges or 

bilingual training. 

A Voting Section 

attorney visited 

Seagraves and the 

Seagraves Independent 

School Board. The 

Voting Section also 

contacted a newspaper 

to review published 

articles regarding the 

school board election. 

Information in a 

newspaper article 

indicated that the 

allegations were untrue, 

and that all election 

material was produced in 

English and Spanish. The 

Voting Section attorney 

was told that confusion 

existed for all voters 

because of the present 

districting system. 

The Seagraves City 

Secretary wrote a letter to 

the Voting Section 

attorney stating that each 

year the city names a 

Hispanic judge who is 

also bilingual. The City 

The Voting Section 

attorney suggested that 

the town should make an 

effort to educate voters of 

district boundaries by 

methods other than 

newspaper advertising. 

Subsequent to the 

election, the city of 

Seagraves sent a map of 

district boundaries and 

candidates running in 

each district to each city 

household. The Voting 

Section closed the matter. 
Attachment IV 

Page 86 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

Secretary also provided 

the Voting Section 

attorney with minutes of 

prior city council meetings 

highlighting the 

nomination and approval 

of the election judges, 

and a sample ballot 

printed in both English 

and Spanish. 

11. During the November 

2000 election, MiamiDade County, Florida, 

allegedly engaged in 

practices that prevented 

the county’s Creolespeaking HaitianAmerican voters with 

limited ability to speak 

English from securing 

assistance at the polls. In 

circumstances where the 

county permitted voter 

assistance from persons 

of the voters’ choice, the 

scope of the assistance 

was limited (e.g., standing 

next to voters during poll 

worker demonstrations) 

and of little value to voters 

once they entered the 

voting booths. 

After a full investigation, 

the Voting Section 

initiated litigation 

against Miami-Dade 

County because of its 

alleged violation of 

Section 208 of the 

Voting Rights Act. Prior 

to initiating litigation, the 

Voting Section 

conducted an 

investigation of the 

county’s voter 

assistance practices 

during the 2000 

election. DOJ filed a 

complaint with the U.S. 

District Court in the 

Southern District for 

Florida on June 7, 2002. 

Evidence gathered during 

the investigation 

demonstrated that Creolespeaking HaitianAmerican voters at 

several precincts were 

denied assistance from 

persons of their choice in 

violation of Section 208 of 

the Voting Rights Act. 

Oftentimes, only poll 

workers, who did not 

speak Creole, were 

permitted to assist the 

voters, and they limited 

their assistance to voter 

demonstrations outside 

the voting booths. The 

Voting Section did not find 

evidence that 

noncompliance with 

Section 208 was the 

result of intentional 

discrimination. In this 

regard, it was noted that 

the Miami-Dade Board of 

County Commissioners 

passed ordinances in 

1999 and 2000 mandating 

that Haitian-Creole ballot 

translations be available 

in voting booths located at 

precincts where 

“significant” numbers of 

Haitian-American people 

vote. 

A consent order was 

entered into on June 17, 

2002, that, in part, 

prohibited the county from 

denying Haitian-American 

voters assistance from 

persons of their choice 

and mandated that the 

county take certain steps 

to prevent violations of 

Section 208 and to 

redress the harm caused 

these voters, such as 

modifying poll worker 

training to include 

instruction on how to 

handle requests for 

language assistance. The 

consent order is in effect 

through December. 31, 

2005. The case is open to 

monitor implementation of 

the consent order. 

12. As described in DOJ’s 

complaint, DOJ alleged 

that various election 

practices and procedures 

in Orange County, Florida, 

unlawfully denied or 

abridged the voting rights 

of Spanish-speaking 

citizens. The challenged 

practices concerned the 

alleged failure of the 

county to: (1) provide an 

After investigating these 

allegations, DOJ filed a 

complaint in the U.S. 

District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida 

on June 28, 2002, and 

entered into a consent 

decree with Orange 

County on October 9, 

2002. 

In the complaint, the 

Voting Section alleged 

that Orange County 

violated VRA Sections 

203 and 208. 

The case is open to 

monitor implementation of 

the consent decree. The 

consent decree permits 

DOJ to monitor elections 

in Orange County from 

October 9, 2002 until 

January 31, 2005. The 

consent decree also 

mandates policies and 

procedures that Orange 

County must adopt with 
Attachment IV 

Page 87 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

adequate number of 

bilingual poll workers 

trained to assist Hispanic 

voters on Election Day; (2) 

ensure that poll officials 

allow Spanish-speaking 

voters to have persons of 

their choice assist them in 

casting their ballots; and 

(3) translate certain written 

election materials into 

Spanish. 

regards to treatment of 

Spanish-speaking voters. 

The consent decree is 

valid until January 31, 

2005. DOJ did not 

contend that Orange 

County’s failure to adhere 

to VRA Sections 203 and 

208 was the result of 

intentional discrimination. 

13. As described in DOJ’s 

complaint, DOJ alleged 

that Osceola County, 

Florida, engaged in 

various election practices 

and procedures that 

unlawfully denied Spanishspeaking citizens an 

opportunity equal to that of 

other citizens to vote. The 

challenged practices 

concerned: (1) the failure 

of poll officials to 

communicate effectively to 

Spanish-speaking voters 

necessary information 

concerning their eligibility 

to vote, voter registration 

status, identification 

requirements, and polling 

place changes and 

assignments; (2) the 

refusal of poll officials to 

allow certain Spanishspeaking voters 

assistance in voting by 

persons of their choice; 

and (3) hostile remarks by 

poll officials directed 

towards Hispanic voters 

with limited English 

proficiency. 

After investigating the 

matter, DOJ filed a 

complaint in the U.S. 

District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida 

on June 28, 2002, and 

entered into a consent 

decree with Osceola 

County on July 22, 

2002. 

In the complaint, the 

Voting Section alleged 

that Osceola County 

violated VRA Sections 2 

and 208. 

The case is open to 

monitor implementation of 

the consent decree. The 

consent decree allows 

DOJ to monitor elections 

held in Osceola County 

from the date of the 

consent decree through 

January 31, 2005. It 

specifies procedures that 

the Osceola County Board 

of Elections must 

implement with regards to 

the treatment of Spanishspeaking voters and efforts 

the county must engage in 

to facilitate voting by 

Spanish-speaking voters. 

The consent decree is 

valid through January 31, 

2005. DOJ did not contend 

that Osceola County 

intended to deny Spanishspeaking voters an equal 

opportunity to participate in 

the political process. 

14. It was alleged that, in 

conducting elections in 

Reading City, 

Pennsylvania, Berks 

County denied Hispanic 

citizens with limited 

English proficiency an 

equal opportunity to 

participate in the political 

process and elect the 

representatives of their 

choice. 

After extensive 

investigation, which 

included the monitoring 

of several elections held 

in the county, the Voting 

Section initiated 

litigation against Berks 

County because of its 

alleged violation of 

several provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act. DOJ 

filed a complaint with 

the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District 

In the complaint, the 

Voting Section alleged 

that actions contributing to 

the denial by Berks 

County to provide 

Hispanic citizens with 

limited English proficiency 

an equal opportunity to 

participate in the political 

process and elect the 

representatives of their 

choice included the 

following: poll officials 

directed hostile remarks 

On July 17, 2003, DOJ 

filed a motion for (1) 

permanent injunction and 

entry of final judgment 

that sought to 

permanently enjoin the 

county’s conduct of 

elections using policies, 

practices, procedures, 

and methods that violate 

certain VRA requirements 

and (2) the court to issue 

an order authorizing OPM 

to appoint federal 
Attachment IV 

Page 88 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

of Pennsylvania on 

February 25, 2003. 

at, and acted in a hostile 

manner toward, Hispanic 

voters to deter them from 

voting and make them feel 

unwelcome at the polls; 

poll officials engaged in 

election practices 

including the failure to 

communicate effectively 

with Spanish-speaking 

voters regarding 

necessary information 

about their eligibility to 

vote, voter registration 

status, identification 

requirements, and polling 

place changes and 

assignments, and turning 

away Hispanic voters at 

the 2001 and 2002 

elections; and Berks 

County failed to recruit, 

train, and maintain an 

adequate pool of Hispanic 

and bilingual poll officials 

despite their knowledge of 

the needs of Hispanic 

voters with limited English 

proficiency. 

examiners pursuant to 

VRA to serve in Berks 

County through June 30, 

2007. The court granted 

the United States’ motion 

on August 20, 2003. The 

case remains open for 

monitoring and several 

elections have been 

monitored since entry of 

the consent decree. 

15. As described in DOJ’s 

complaint, DOJ alleged 

that the state of 

Tennessee engaged in 

practices that unlawfully 

denied certain citizens full 

and complete 

opportunities to register to 

vote in elections for 

federal office as mandated 

by NVRA. The challenged 

practices included the 

failure of the state and 

agency officials to: (1) 

provide applications to 

register to vote 

simultaneously with 

applications for motor 

vehicle driver’s licenses 

(including renewal 

applications); (2) request 

only the minimum amount 

of information necessary 

to prevent duplicate voter 

registration and enable 

state election officials to 

assess the eligibility of the 

applicant and to 

administer voter 

registration and other part 

After investigating this 

matter, DOJ filed a 

complaint against the 

state of Tennessee in 

the U.S. District Court of 

Tennessee on 

September 27, 2002. 

On that same day, the 

state of Tennessee 

entered into a consent 

decree with DOJ. 

In the complaint, the 

Voting Section alleged 

that Tennessee violated 

provisions in NVRA. 

The case is open to 

monitor implementation of 

the consent decree. The 

consent decree requires 

the state and state 

agencies to develop 

uniform procedures with 

regards to the voter 

application process and 

the implementation of 

NVRA and report progress 

to DOJ annually while the 

consent decree is in effect. 

The consent decree 

expires on August 1, 2005. 
Attachment IV 

Page 89 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

of the election process; (3) 

distribute voter registration 

applications with every 

application for public 

assistance or services to 

persons with disabilities; 

and (4) transmit completed 

voter registration 

applications in a timely 

manner. 
Attachment IV 

Page 90 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Election-Related Closed Preliminary Investigation and Matters and Closed Cases Initiated during 

Calendar Year 2002 

No. Preliminary 

Investigation/Matter/Case 

Jurisdiction Date investigation or matter 

initiated 

DJ No. 

1 Preliminary investigation Hinds County, Mississippi November 2002 No 

2 Matter (election monitoring) Apache and Navajo 

Counties, Arizona 

September 2002 Yes 

3 Matter (election monitoring) Broward County, Florida November 2002 Yes 

4 Matter (election monitoring) Duval County, Florida November 2002 Yes 

5 Matter Georgia October 2002 Nod

6 Matter Minnesota October 2002 Yes 

7 Matter New Jersey October 2002 Yes 

8 Matter (election monitoring) Bexar County, Texas October 2002 Yes 

9 Matter Hidalgo County, Texas December 2002 Yes 

10 Case Oklahoma August 2002 (case filed in 

September 2002) 

Yes 

11 Case Texas March 2002 (case filed in 

March 2002) 

Yes 

Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division. 

d According to the Voting Section, this matter did not receive a DJ number inadvertently. 

Summary of Election-Related Closed Preliminary Investigation and Matters and Closed Cases Initiated 

during Calendar Year 2002 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

1. The wife of a soldier from Hinds 

County, Mississippi, assigned to 

Guantanamo, Cuba, alleged that 

her husband and approximately 50 

other soldiers from that county did 

not receive their absentee ballots in 

the mail. Hinds County 

acknowledged receiving their 

requests in mid-September of 

2002, and the circuit clerk 

confirmed they were mailed in the 

first week of October 2002. 

The Mississippi Secretary of State’s 

office suggested that the soldiers 

fax in federal ballots but was not 

sure the ballots would be counted. 

That office also suggested to the 

soldier’s wife that she contact the 

Voting Section. She reported to the 

Voting Section that soldiers from 

Madison and Rankin counties, also 

in Mississippi, did not receive their 

ballots until after the election. She 

also contacted the Assistant U.S. 

Attorney (AUSA) for Hinds County. 

A Voting Section official 

discussed the allegation 

with an official in the 

Federal Voting 

Assistance Program 

(FVAP) under the 

Department of Defense 

(DOD), who said that 

someone in Hinds 

County told FVAP on 

November 20, 2002, 

that about 20 ballots 

had been sent to 

soldiers in Guantanamo. 

Voting Section staff also 

phoned the AUSA in 

Jackson, Mississippi, 

and noted in a memo 

that the AUSA had 

directed a local Federal 

Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) agent to interview 

the chancery clerk, the 

registrar, and all others 

in the chain of custody 

of the ballots. The 

Voting Section also 

discussed asking FVAP 

to monitor transit of 

absentee ballots to 

soldiers from Hinds and 

Brandon Counties 

The AUSA told the 

soldier’s wife that an 

investigation revealed 

the ballots had been lost 

in the mail. The FBI 

agent concluded that the 

county officials had 

mailed the ballots to the 

soldiers, but they had 

been lost or 

disappeared. The private 

company that processed 

mail for the county told 

the FBI agent that they 

were unable to check the 

zip codes of mail 

processed on a 

particular day. 

The Voting Section 

closed the preliminary 

investigation after the 

AUSA concluded, and 

the Voting Section 

agreed, that there 

was no basis for 

bringing charges 

against anyone 

involved in the 

handling of the ballots 

because the ballots 

had been lost in the 

mail and no further 

action was needed. 
Attachment IV 

Page 91 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

during the next election 

in response to the 

soldier’s wife January 

2003 request that the 

Voting Section keep 

these counties on its 

“radar screen.” 

2. On November 5, 2002, federal 

election observers and Voting 

Section staff monitored polling 

place activities at 21 locations in 

Apache and Navajo Counties, 

Arizona. The Attorney General, 

pursuant to VRA Section 6, had 

certified these counties for federal 

observers. Since then, federal 

observers have documented 

problems related to the counties’ 

inability to provide consistently 

effective Navajo language 

assistance to voters and other 

related circumstances affecting the 

Navajo voting population. 

The Voting Section was concerned 

about the following issues related 

to the primary held in September 

10, 2002, and the general election 

held in November 5, 2002: (1) the 

counties’ provision for Navajo 

language assistance, (2) voters 

being turned away at the polls, (3) 

crossover voting, and (4) polls not 

opening on time. During the 2000 

election cycle and 2002 primary, 

federal observers documented 

several problems with the counties’ 

provision of Navajo language 

assistance to voters. The Voting 

Section suggested that both 

counties distribute cassette tapes 

containing Navajo language ballot 

translations to poll workers. The 

counties committed to preparing 

and distributing the tapes to poll 

workers. Officials from both 

counties also informed the Voting 

Section that they would use 

updated flip charts for the 

November election. These charts, 

which were used for the September 

primary at the Voting Section’s 

suggestion, displayed pictorial 

representations and written Navajo 

translations of each of the offices 

on the primary election ballot. 

There had been confusion in 

previous elections among many 

In September 2002, the 

Voting Section met with 

the Apache County 

Election Director, the 

Apache County Deputy 

County Attorney, the 

Navajo County Election 

Director, the Navajo 

County recorder, and 

two Navajo County 

outreach workers to 

discuss several issues 

related to elections in 

the two counties. The 

Voting Section provided 

suggestions on how to 

prevent prior problems 

from recurring. The 

Voting Section observed 

the November 2002 

election. 

The original poll worker 

training schedules that 

the two counties had 

provided to the Voting 

Section allotted 

approximately 2 hours 

for training. The Voting 

Section suggested 

having all-day training 

sessions, and the 

schedules were revised 

to allot 6-1⁄2 hours for 

training. 

The Voting Section 

suggested that both 

counties provide each 

polling place on the 

Navajo Reservation with 

voter registration lists 

from both counties, and 

train poll workers to 

check both lists and 

check with the 

appropriate county 

election department 

before turning voters 

away. Both counties 

agreed to adopt this 

suggestion. The Voting 

The counties’ 

implementation of their 

Navajo Language 

election information 

program was 

inadequate. While the 

counties provided 

language assistance to 

many voters, the 

assistance was 

frequently insufficient 

and failed to provide 

consistent and accurate 

language translation of 

the offices and 

propositions on the 

ballot’s 14 propositions. 

The Voting Section 

concluded that the 

counties must improve 

and expand their training 

program for interpreters. 

The federal observers 

reported that the 

interpreters and poll 

workers believed more 

training in Navajo 

language translation was 

necessary. Some poll 

workers told the 

observers that the 

audiotapes containing 

Navajo translations were 

too long and confusing. 

One polling place was 

not well organized, 

resulting in very long 

lines. The Voting Section 

reported this to the 

Navajo County Elections 

Director, who sent an 

outreach worker to 

remedy the problem. The 

line was moving more 

quickly by mid-afternoon. 

The number of voters 

turned away from the 

polls was less than 

during the September 

A November 22, 

2002, memo 

discussing the 

monitoring of the 

November 5, 2002, 

election indicated that 

the Voting Section 

would meet in the 

future with election 

officials from both 

counties to discuss 

the November 5, 

2002, election and 

develop methods to 

improve the counties’ 

provision of language 

assistance and 

overall Election Day 

performance. The 

matter was closed 

after the election. 

According to the 

Voting Section, this is 

standard Voting 

Section procedure 

when irregularities 

are observed during 

election coverage. 

In the case of Navajo 

language assistance 

in these counties, the 

Voting Section stated 

that such outreach 

has been continuous 

for many years. 

Another memo 

discussing 

compliance and 

outreach efforts since 

the 2002 election 

indicates many 

improvements in 

Navajo language 

assistance efforts as 

a result of this 

outreach, including: 

(1) improved poll 

worker training which 

included the use of 

pictorial flip charts to 

assist voters in 
Attachment IV 

Page 92 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

elderly Navajo voters who live near 

the Navajo/Apache county line 

about polling place and voter 

registration. These voters often 

vote in different locations for tribal 

and state/federal elections. Tribal 

elections do not recognize county 

boundaries. Poll workers at polling 

places near the county line 

apparently turned away dozens of 

elderly voters because of voting 

location confusion during the 2000 

primary and general elections and 

the 2002 primary. In 2000, poll 

workers gave affidavit ballots to 

other crossover voters in the 

mistaken belief that the ballots 

would be accepted later. However, 

since these voters were not 

registered in the counties where 

they voted, their votes were 

considered invalid. 

Section also expressed 

concern about polling 

places that opened late 

for the September 

primary. The counties 

agreed to address this 

prior to the November 

2002 election. 

primary. However, while 

all the polling places had 

both counties’ 

registration books, poll 

workers at most 

locations did not use 

them. Some did not 

know the books were 

available. At one Apache 

County location, 

observers reported that 

the Navajo county list 

was not present. The 

Voting Section informed 

the county elections 

director, who showed the 

Navajo County book to 

the polling place 

inspector. The poll 

workers had not 

removed the book from 

the elections supply box. 

The Voting Section felt 

that more training and 

practice would make the 

poll workers more 

familiar with this new 

system. There were no 

complaints about polls 

not opening on time. 

understanding the 

ballot; (2) outreach 

and voter registration 

efforts on the 

reservation at various 

events; (3) the 

opening of new early 

voting locations on 

the Navajo 

Reservation; (4) the 

opening of a new 

satellite election office 

on the reservation to 

disseminate voter 

information and 

register voters; and 

(5) greater 

cooperation among 

the counties providing 

Navajo language 

assistance. 

3. Voting Section personnel and 2 

AUSAs monitored 84 precincts in 

Broward County, Florida, during the 

November 2002 election. 

Actions taken by DOJ 

staff included 

interviewing the clerk of 

the precinct where a 

white male precinct 

worker who allegedly 

harassed AfricanAmerican voters was 

employed about any 

complaints or problems 

with the assistant 

precinct clerk in 

question. DOJ staff 

spoke with four voters at 

this precinct regarding 

their experience voting 

and asked election 

officials to make chairs 

available for the 

disabled and elderly 

waiting in line to vote. 

They contacted county 

election officials about a 

voter who was told he 

could not vote because 

he had already sent an 

absentee ballot; the 

precinct clerk eventually 

verified that the voter 

Voting Section staff 

provided assistance to 

help correct issues that 

arose during the 

monitoring. Examples of 

issues/problems 

observed were: (1) 

African-American voters 

felt somewhat harassed 

by a white male precinct 

worker; (2) a poll official 

did not want to allow a 

person to vote who said 

he had requested an 

absentee ballot but did 

not receive it; and (3) 

persons were turned 

away because of 

precinct changes due to 

redistricting, because 

they moved, and for 

other reasons. 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter 

because the election 

being monitored was 

completed. 
Attachment IV 

Page 93 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

had not been sent an 

absentee ballot, and the 

voter was allowed to 

cast his vote on election 

day. 

With regard to the 

absentee ballot issue, 

DOJ staff advised the 

poll official to contact 

the Broward County 

Election Board. In 

addition, DOJ staff: (1) 

gave a voter the toll-free 

telephone number for 

the Voting Section 

because the voter 

wanted to complain 

about the lack of voting 

machines; (2) asked a 

poll clerk and poll 

workers if they had 

received complaints 

about not having 

enough voting 

machines; and (3) 

spoke with two voters 

who complained about a 

precinct being hard to 

find. 

4. At the request of Florida’s 

Secretary of State, the Voting 

Section monitored the election in 

November 2002 in Duval County, 

Florida. 

Voting Section attorneys 

monitored the election 

and facilitated the 

resolution of problems 

that arose by 

communicating proper 

election procedures to 

the Supervisor of 

Elections. Prior to 

monitoring the election, 

Voting Section attorneys 

met with the Supervisor 

of Elections, minority 

leaders in the 

community, leaders of 

the NAACP, and 

representatives from the 

local Democratic and 

Republican parties. 

They exchanged 

telephone information 

and invited each person 

or group to contact them 

with details of any 

problems that they 

might help address. 

They also provided 

guidance on issues that 

might arise to provide a 

While monitoring the 

election, the Voting 

Section found various 

areas of clarification and 

improvement. One issue 

involved absentee 

ballots and Florida law 

allowing a person who 

requested an absentee 

ballot but did not submit 

it to vote at the polls. 

There was confusion 

when absentee ballots 

were submitted but 

rejected as being 

incomplete because they 

lacked voters’ signatures 

and voters then being 

able to vote at the polls. 

Voters who submit 

absentee ballots are 

considered to have voted 

and cannot vote at the 

polls on election day if 

the absentee ballot is 

rejected. 

Also, poll workers had 

given incorrect ballots to 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter 

because the election 

being monitored was 

completed. 
Attachment IV 

Page 94 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

common understanding 

of action that should be 

taken if a particular 

problem arose. 

The Voting Section 

attorneys worked with 

the Supervisor of 

Elections to improve 

election processes and 

were invited by the 

Supervisor of Elections 

to monitor elections in 

April and May 2003 to 

further improve upon 

their election processes. 

some voters. Voters 

were turned away who 

lacked signed photo 

identification and were 

not allowed to vote by 

provisional ballot. There 

were also a few 

instances of insensitivity 

to minority voters and 

voters with disabilities. 

5. Georgia state law requires 

counties to have absentee ballots 

on hand 45 days before a general 

election. Georgia missed the 

September 20, 2002, deadline for 

the November 5, 2002, general 

election because of the 

compressed election schedule in 

2002. The 45-day deadline was set 

to comply with federal mandates to 

make it easier for U.S. military 

personnel stationed outside the 

United States to vote. Georgia had 

compressed its 2002 primary and 

runoff election schedules such that 

the runoff was held only 49 days 

before the November 5 general 

election. This precluded the printing 

of the general election ballot in time 

for the mailing deadline required 

under state law. Georgia election 

officials had contacted FVAP during 

the first week of October regarding 

the state’s compliance with the 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizen 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). 

Catoosa County ballots omitted the 

names of the Republican candidate 

for the U.S. Senate and the 

Republican gubernatorial candidate 

from the ballot. An allegation was 

made that this, among other 

absentee ballot irregularities, 

violated UOCAVA because the 

correct ballots, even if sent at the 

time this concern was raised on 

October 16, 2002, would not be 

received in time. 

Georgia’s Secretary of State asked 

DOJ to bring suit against the state 

to extend the deadline for receipt of 

FVAP advised the 

Voting Section that a 

senior official in 

Georgia’s Elections 

Division said that 

election officials in each 

of Georgia’s counties 

would photocopy all 

necessary ballots and 

send them to every 

military and overseas 

citizen absentee voter 

from whom an 

application had been 

received in time. All 154 

Georgia counties had 

done this by October 7. 

A Voting Section 

attorney asked the 

source of the allegation 

in Catoosa County to 

keep in touch and gave 

the person who made 

the allegation the phone 

number and Web site 

for FVAP for additional 

information about 

FVAP’s role in this 

process. The Voting 

Section attorney 

contacted FVAP, and a 

FVAP official agreed to 

contact officials in 

Catoosa and Ben Hill 

counties to get copies of 

their ballots and get 

back to the Voting 

Section attorney. The 

Voting Section attorney 

also contacted a state 

election official. 

FVAP favored going 

forward with the suit that 

Georgia’s Secretary of 

State had suggested, but 

the Voting Section did 

not because (1) the 

number of voters 

affected was very small, 

less than 132 overseas; 

(2) UOCAVA was 

amended in 1986 to add 

the federal write-in 

absentee ballot as a 

back-up ballot when 

timely requested ballots 

do not reach voters in a 

timely matter (the Voting 

Section relies on the use 

of the back-up ballot as a 

remedy in UOCAVA 

lawsuits brought in 

primary elections, and 

had no reason to believe 

it was an inadequate 

remedy); and (3) the 

Voting Section believed 

the Secretary of State’s 

true interest in the 

lawsuit stemmed from 

the large number of 

regular absentee ballots 

that were mailed late, 

and such ballots could 

not be part of any 

UOCAVA remedy. 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter. 
Attachment IV 

Page 95 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

military and other absentee ballots. 

6. The Voting Section conducted an 

investigation under UOCAVA and 

monitored a lawsuit in Minnesota 

over absentee ballots used in the 

November 2002 general election. 

At issue was the removal of 

Senator Paul Wellstone’s name on 

the ballots and issuance of new 

ballots. Senator Wellstone died 11 

days prior to the election, and 

former Vice President Mondale was 

designated the replacement 

candidate for the DemocraticFarmer-Labor party. This party 

argued for mass mailing of new 

absentee ballots, and the 

Republican party argued to do the 

mailing based on requests. 

In an e-mail, the Voting 

Section attorney 

expressed concern 

about ballots being 

mailed, filled out, and 

returned between 

October 31 and 

November 5 (6 days). 

The Voting Section 

monitored state actions 

to address this issue. 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter 

after the state 

Supreme Court 

issued an order 

addressing the 

absentee ballot issue. 

The order specified 

the procedures for 

absentee ballots that 

included various 

options based on 

whether a voter had 

or had not already 

voted for Senator 

Wellstone. 

7. A suit arose from the resignation 

of Senator Robert Torricelli from 

the general election and ballot for 

Democratic nomination to the U.S. 

Senate. The New Jersey 

Democratic party brought suit to 

secure a declaration that the New 

Jersey Democratic State 

Committee was permitted to select 

a qualified candidate to replace 

Sen. Torricelli. The New Jersey 

Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 

state Democratic party and 

required that a new ballot be 

prepared under the direction of the 

state Attorney General and a state 

court judge. Military and overseas 

ballots were to be given 

precedence and an explanatory 

letter was to be sent to all voters 

who received the new ballots. The 

Voting Section was concerned 

about the late transmittal of ballots 

to military and overseas voters. 

The Voting Section 

prepared a discussion 

memo evaluating the 

impact that the New 

Jersey Supreme Court 

ruling would have on 

overseas absentee 

voters. The Voting 

Section monitored the 

New Jersey Democratic 

party lawsuit and state 

remedies to address this 

issue. 

The Voting Section 

noted that late 

transmittal of ballots to 

voters by airmail 

generally raises 

concerns that overseas 

voters would not have 

sufficient time to receive, 

mark, and return their 

ballots to local election 

officials. The Voting 

Section staff determined 

that New Jersey state 

law contains several 

unique features that 

obviate the need for 20-

40 days of roundtrip 

airmailing. In addition, 

DOD provides a backup 

ballot available at military 

installations and U.S. 

embassies/consulates. 

This is referred to as a 

federal write-in absentee 

ballot. 

The Voting Section 

noted that the question 

might arise regarding 

how the state would 

address ballots that had 

already been transmitted 

to overseas voters and 

may have already been 

returned. The Voting 

Section determined that 

this was a question for 

state officials to resolve, 

and that the Voting 

The Voting Section 

concluded that New 

Jersey state law 

provides for several 

methods for UOCAVA 

voters to participate in 

federal elections over 

and above the use of 

regular absentee 

ballots sent by 

airmail. The Voting 

Section closed the 

matter due to lack of 

merit. 
Attachment IV 

Page 96 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

Section planned to raise 

this issue when speaking 

with state officials in 

October 2002. 

8. An attorney for Bexar County, 

Texas, requested, in a letter to the 

Voting Section dated October 18, 

2002, expedited review of changes 

in the county’s early voting process 

in the joint general and special 

election on November 5, 2002. 

Changes included: (1) the one-time 

use of two-page ballots for partisan 

contested races, (2) procedures for 

counting ballots with straight-party 

votes, and (3) one-time use of a 

single two-sided ballot for partisan 

contested races supplemented by a 

separate sheet with duplicate 

voting instructions for the 

November 5, 2002, general 

election. Prior to that request, the 

League of United Latin American 

Citizens filed suit in U.S. District 

Court for the Western District of 

Texas alleging that Bexar County 

implemented changes to the 

conduct of the November general 

election without obtaining 

preclearance from DOJ. 

The Chief of the Voting 

Section wrote a letter 

back to the attorney for 

Bexar County. The 

Voting Section had 

telephone discussions 

with various people 

regarding the ballot 

format issues. 

In a letter dated 

November 1, 2002, The 

Voting Section stated 

that the Attorney General 

did not interpose any 

objection to the specified 

changes, but noted that 

Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act provides that 

failure of the Attorney 

General to object does 

not bar subsequent 

litigation to enjoin 

enforcement of the 

changes. 

After the League of 

United Latin American 

Citizens filed the lawsuit, 

Bexar County advised 

the court that they 

initiated Section 5 

preclearance submission 

procedures on October 

18, 2002, and October 

21, 2002. The county 

had not obtained 

preclearance from DOJ 

at the time the lawsuit 

was filed. The court 

agreed with both parties 

that the changes were 

required and allowed the 

changes to proceed 

pending the 

preclearance. On 

October 31, 2002, the 

court decided to retain 

jurisdiction over the case 

through the conclusion of 

the 2002 election 

process and ordered the 

parties to advise the 

court as to their positions 

on the case on or before 

December 1, 2002. 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter 

because it granted 

preclearance for the 

changes. 
Attachment IV 

Page 97 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

9. A U.S. Representative sent a 

letter to the Attorney General 

regarding possible voter 

suppression in Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and 

Texas. In Arkansas, Louisiana, and 

Maryland, it was alleged that 

African-Americans were victims of 

voter suppression. In New Jersey 

and Texas, allegations of voter 

suppression involved Hispanics. 

The victims of voter suppression in 

the other states were not specified. 

According to the Voting Section, 

many of the matters referred to in 

the letter were matters under the 

jurisdiction of the Criminal Division 

and were being investigated by that 

Division when the letter was 

received. The Voting Section 

investigated two of the allegations 

referred to in the letter, including 

one in Hidalgo County, Texas, 

where it was alleged that the 

Republican party intimidated 

Hispanic voters countywide to 

dampen their turnout at the general 

election. The second allegation that 

the Voting Section investigated that 

was referred to in the letter was in 

New Jersey; the Voting Section 

opened a matter in 2003 to 

investigate this allegation (see 

information provided in this 

attachment for 2003). 

The most direct form of alleged 

intimidation in Hidalgo County was 

reported to have occurred when 

two poll watchers for a Republican 

candidate challenged Hispanic 

voters at early voting on the basis 

that a study indicated that 13,000 

dead or ineligible voters were in the 

county’s voter registration rolls. The 

Republican party held a press 

conference two weeks before the 

election where party 

representatives alleged that voter 

fraud could be a significant problem 

with the number of people listed 

incorrectly on the voter rolls. 

A Voting Section memo 

referred to an allegation 

received from the U.S. 

Representative 

regarding possible 

intimidation at the 

November 2002 election 

held in Hidalgo County, 

Texas. The Voting 

Section attorney 

requested several 

pieces of documentation 

from the county 

elections administrator, 

including newspaper 

articles, letters between 

the elections 

administrator and the 

Republican elections 

administrator, and 

information regarding a 

study regarding the 

possibility of 13,000 

dead or ineligible voters 

on the county voter rolls. 

The Voting Section 

attorney spoke with 

Hispanic voters and 

other minority contacts. 

The Voting Section 

attorney also analyzed 

voter turnout data for 

Hidalgo County and 

compared it to the state 

of Texas for 2002 and 

previous elections. 

The Voting Section 

determined that Hidalgo 

County’s election 

administrator handled 

the situation well by 

expelling the poll 

watchers when the 

voting supervisors 

alerted the election 

administrator that two 

poll watchers for the 

Republican candidate 

were making random 

challenges to Hispanic 

voters. 

The Voting Section 

further determined that 

efforts on the part of the 

Republican party did not 

dampen minority turnout 

and did not discover 

instances of voter 

intimidation at the polls 

on election day. The 

Voting Section noted that 

minority contacts in the 

county: (1) did not think 

that the allegations of 

dead voters on the rolls 

dampened turnout; (2) 

did not believe that the 

challenges made by the 

two poll watchers caused 

fewer Hispanic voters to 

vote; and (3) did not 

report problems of voter 

intimidation at the polls. 

The Voting Section did 

not find apparent 

differences between the 

voter turnout data in the 

2002 election compared 

to other elections. 

The Voting Section 

closed the matter on 

June 25, 2003, 

because it lacked 

merit. The Voting 

Section attorney 

observed that there 

was a tense 

atmosphere in 

Hidalgo County 

between some of the 

white Republicans 

and the Hispanic 

citizenry. The Voting 

Section 

recommended that 

this is an area that 

should be monitored 

in future elections. 

10. As described in DOJ’s 

complaint, DOJ alleged that the 

state of Oklahoma was not in 

compliance with UOCAVA. Election 

After an expedited 

investigation, DOJ filed 

a complaint in the U.S. 

District Court for the 

In the complaint, the 

Voting Section alleged 

that the state of 

Oklahoma violated 

The consent decree 

required the state to 

take corrective 

actions so that all 
Attachment IV 

Page 98 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Description based on Voting 

Section information 

Voting Section’s 

actions taken to 

address allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by 

Voting Section 

officials in Oklahoma could not mail 

absentee ballots to military and 

civilian overseas voters on a date 

sufficiently in advance of the 

September 17, 2002, primary runoff 

election to allow voters to receive 

the ballot, cast a vote, and return 

the ballot to election officials by the 

deadline established by state law. 

Western District of 

Oklahoma on 

September 12, 2002, 

and entered into a 

consent decree with the 

state of Oklahoma on 

September 17, 2002. 

UOCAVA. uniformed military 

personnel and 

citizens living 

overseas who filed a 

timely request to 

receive an absentee 

ballot are given the 

opportunity to vote. 

The state did so 

through, among other 

things, the passage of 

UOCAVA compliance 

legislation in May 

2003. 

11. As described in DOJ’s 

complaint, DOJ alleged that as a 

result of the compressed period of 

time between the Texas primary 

and runoff elections, election 

officials in the state of Texas failed 

to mail absentee ballots to military 

and civilian overseas voters on a 

date sufficiently in advance of the 

April 9, 2002, federal primary runoff 

election to allow such voters to 

receive the ballot, cast a vote, and 

return the ballot to election officials 

by the deadline established by 

state law. 

After an expedited 

investigation, DOJ filed 

a complaint and motion 

for a temporary 

restraining order and 

preliminary injunction in 

the U.S. District Court 

for the Western District 

of Texas on March 22, 

2002. 

In the complaint, the 

Voting Section alleged 

that the state of Texas 

violated UOCAVA. 

The court entered a 

temporary restraining 

order and preliminary 

injunction on March 

25, 2002, permitting 

qualified Texas voters 

to use federal write-in 

absentee ballots for 

the April 9, 2002, 

election. According to 

the terms of the court 

order, the state was 

required to take 

actions to remedy 

absentee ballot 

issues in the future. 

This included 

permitting voters to 

submit write-in ballots 

if their ballots are not 

sent to them in time 

and counting the 

write-in ballots as 

valid as long as the 

voters living outside 

the United States are 

qualified to vote in 

Texas. 

A stipulation of 

dismissal was 

entered in February 

2004 following 

passage by the state 

legislature of 

legislation remedying 

the United States’ 

complaint. 
Attachment IV 

Page 99 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Election-Related Closed Matter Initiated during Calendar Year 2003 

No. Matter Jurisdiction Date matter initiated DJ No. 

1 Matter New Jersey January 2003 Yes 

Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division. 

Summary of Election-Related Closed Matter Initiated during Calendar Year 2003 

Description based on 

Voting Section 

information 

Voting Section’s actions 

taken to address 

allegation 

Voting Section’s 

assessment of 

allegations 

Disposition by Voting 

Section 

1. This matter was the 

second matter opened 

by the Voting Section in 

response to the 

November 2002 letter 

from a U.S. 

Representative referred 

to in the previously 

described 2002 matter 

for Hidalgo County, 

Texas. There were 

allegations of voter 

intimidation in New 

Jersey. According to a 

newspaper article, emails were sent to Latino 

lawyers urging them to 

engage in an aggressive 

campaign to ensure 

ballot fairness. Attorneys 

for both the Democratic 

and Republican National 

Committees presented 

their case before the 

U.S. district court. The 

judge ruled a few days 

before the November 

2002 election that there 

was “nothing sinister” in 

the Republican ballot 

fairness plan and 

characterized the plan 

as legitimate campaign 

activity. 

The Voting Section 

attorney contacted a 

Latino political activist in 

the New York 

metropolitan area, the 

Treasurer of the New 

Jersey Hispanic Bar 

Foundation, and a 

community activist and 

attorney based in Newark, 

New Jersey. 

The people that the Voting 

Section attorney 

contacted were not aware 

of the e-mail or any other 

threats or intimidation 

tactics against Latino 

voters. The Voting Section 

noted that its investigation 

yielded results similar to 

the judge’s findings—that 

the ballot fairness plan 

mentioned in the e-mail 

did not raise concerns 

about Latino voter 

intimidation during the 

November 2002 general 

election. 

The Voting Section closed 

the matter because it 

lacked merit. 
Attachment V 

Page 100 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

Comments from the Department of Justice 
Attachment V 

Page 101 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 
Attachment V 

Page 102 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 
Attachment V 

Page 103 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 
Attachment V 

Page 104 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 
Attachment V 

Page 105 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 
Attachment V 

Page 106 GAO-04-1041R DOJ Activities to Address Past Voting Irregularities 

(440350)