EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2009-02 

(Alternate Languages) 

2002 VSS Volume I: 2.2.1.3a ballot Production 

2005 VVSG Volume I: 3.1.3 Alternate Languages 

Date: 

August 5, 2009 

Question: 

Must a Voting System be capable of supporting any language covered by law or only 

those applicable to a particular jurisdiction? 

Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

2005 VVSG Volume I: 2.2.1.3a 

The electronic display or printed document on which the user views the ballot is capable 

of rendering an image of the ballot in any of the languages required by the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965, as amended. 

2005 VVSG Volume I: 3.1.3 

The voting equipment shall be capable of presenting the ballot, ballot selections, review 

screens and instructions in any language required by state or federal law. 

Discussion: HAVA Section 301 (a)(4) states that the voting system shall provide 

alternative language accessibility pursuant to the requirements of section 203 of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a). Ideally, every voter would be able to 

vote independently and privately, regardless of language. As a practical matter, 

alternative language access is mandated under the Voting Rights Act of 1975, subject to 

certain thresholds, e.g., if the language group exceeds 5% of the voting age population. 
Discussion: 

The previous EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2008-04 requires voting 

systems to have the capability of providing all ballot information, including all portions 

of the ballot, all instructions, warnings, and vote verification information in the 

appropriate manufacturer supported alternative languages. RFI 2008-04 also states that 

“If a voting system supports a language, the system must be capable of presenting all 

ballot information in that language.” 

This new RFI clarifies the issue of whether or not the interpretation provided by RFI 

2008-04 requires the capability to support any possible languages covered by law or only 

those required by the voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and state and federal law 

for a particular jurisdiction of use. This RFI also clarifies what is meant by the word 

“capable.” 

Section 2.2.1.3a of the 2005 VVSG specifically requires the electronic display or printed 

document to be capable of rendering an image in any of the languages required by the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. There is nothing in that language that 

equivocates or limits the capability to particular jurisdictions of use. RFI 2008-04 adds to 

this requirement by stating that the system must be capable of presenting all ballot 

information in any language supported by the voting system. 

The term “capability” can be interpreted in many ways. However, the intent of the word 

here was to allow for an easy transformation so that alternate languages can be easily 

added. The voting system does not have to have all languages required by the Voting 

Rights Act to be loaded on the system and ready to use. A modular approach, where data 

files can be added or modified, to allow the selection of the appropriate language for the 

vendor is the desirable approach. 

Conclusion: 

The electronic display or printed document on which the user views the ballot shall be 

capable of rendering an image of the ballot in any of the languages required by the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, that are supported by the voting system. The 

voting system need not have all languages required by the Voting Rights Act 

permanently loaded on the system and ready to use. The system must, however, have the 

intrinsic capability of providing these languages, when needed, without major software or 

hardware modifications. To be capable of rendering the image in any of the languages, 

the voting system manufacturer may opt to use a modular approach that would limit the 

voting system changes to modification of data files, rather than source code modification, 

to allow for the addition of required languages. 

.

Applicability: 

Immediate- for all voting system test plans submitted after the date of this document.