Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance
Published: 2008-01-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, contains, among other things, provisions designed to protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the English language may be limited. The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces these provisions, and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) serves as a national clearinghouse for election information and procedures. The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 mandated that GAO study the implementation of bilingual voting under Section 203 of the act. This report discusses (1) the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance as of the November 2006 general election and any subsequent elections through June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly faced in providing such assistance; and (2) the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance, and the extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of such assistance to language minority voters. To obtain details about this voting assistance, GAO obtained information from election officials in 14 of the 296 jurisdictions required to provide it, as well as from community representatives in 11 of these jurisdictions. These jurisdictions were selected to reflect a range of characteristics such as geographic diversity and varying language minority groups.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All but 1 of the 14 election jurisdictions GAO contacted reported providing some form of oral or written bilingual voting assistance through such things as the use of bilingual poll workers, and each of the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in providing assistance. Election offices reported providing similar types of oral and written bilingual voting assistance at each stage of the voting process--from voter registration to Election Day--for the November 2006 and subsequent elections. In nine of the jurisdictions, this bilingual assistance was supplemented by efforts of community-based organizations. In part because DOJ guidance intentionally provides jurisdictions flexibility in how they implement bilingual voting requirements, election offices used varied strategies to implement bilingual programs. Election officials in each of the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges in implementing bilingual assistance programs, including difficulty in recruiting bilingual poll workers and effectively targeting where to provide bilingual voting assistance. Officials in nine jurisdictions also noted they would benefit from additional guidance for providing bilingual assistance. The EAC has taken steps to provide additional guidance to jurisdictions, including plans to develop a set of management guidelines for jurisdictions to use in implementing their programs. GAO identified little quantitative data measuring the usefulness of various types of bilingual voting assistance. Election officials and community-based organization representatives noted that certain forms of assistance, such as having bilingual poll workers, were more useful than others. Some jurisdictions stated that modifications, including outreach to language minority groups, would improve the usefulness of bilingual assistance. While none of the 14 jurisdictions had attempted to formally evaluate their assistance, most reported gathering information about the usefulness of certain aspects of the assistance. While formal evaluations have proven to be a successful means to improve program effectiveness, conducting formal evaluations of the usefulness and effect of bilingual voting assistance is difficult. Key difficulties include identifying the appropriate indicators of success and isolating the effects of bilingual assistance efforts on voters from other influences on election processes. We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for comment. DOJ provided no comments, and the EAC's comments described its recent activities on bilingual voting assistance.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The right to vote has been called one of the most fundamental rights in our  democratic system of government because its effective exercise is  preservative of all others. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended,  (Voting Rights Act) addressed the problem of denial of access to the right  to vote by, among other things, outlawing specified practices and  procedures such as literacy tests. In 1975, the Voting Rights Act was  amended to include section 203, which requires certain jurisdictions to  provide bilingual election materials and assistance to protect the voting  rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the  English language may be limited. These provisions were initially set to  expire in 1985 but have been extended several times. Debate about  whether to require bilingual voting assistance includes advocates of  bilingual voting assistance who assert that it allows language minority  voters to more fully participate in our nation’s electoral process, while  critics contend that the costs incurred in providing such assistance are not  warranted because the assistance is not being used by language minority  voters.
Enacted on July 27, 2006, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta  Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006  extended the bilingual provisions until 2032, and required GAO to study  the implementation, effectiveness, and efficiency of current bilingual  voting requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. As  discussed with your offices, this report does not address the efficiency of  providing bilingual voting assistance because of the lack of cost data for  providing such assistance. As noted in a March 2006 report, professors at  Arizona State University surveyed jurisdictions covered by Section 203 and  reported that a majority of the responding jurisdictions were unable to  provide the costs of their bilingual assistance. Given this recent survey of  jurisdictions, we focused on obtaining more detailed information about  bilingual voting assistance from selected jurisdictions across the country.  Our objectives were to determine:  the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the  Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance as of the  November 2006 general election and any subsequent elections through  June 2007, and the challenges they reportedly faced in providing such  assistance; and  the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance, and the  extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of  such assistance to language minority voters.
To meet our objectives, we visited or collected information from 14  jurisdictions required to provide bilingual voting assistance under Section  203 of the Voting Rights Act (covered jurisdictions) in 12 states. We  considered surveying all of the 296 covered jurisdictions but decided  against doing so for several reasons, including the March 2006 report cited  above on the results of a survey of these same jurisdictions about similar  issues. (For a more detailed discussion of these considerations as well as a  comprehensive description of our methodology, see app. I.) We chose the  14 jurisdictions because they reflected a variety of characteristics, such as  size (i.e., voting age population), geographic diversity, and varying  language minority groups. We wanted a diverse group of sites to allow us  to report on a wide range of jurisdictions’ experiences with providing  bilingual voting assistance. We also obtained information from  representatives of 38 community-based organizations (CBO) in 11 of the 14  jurisdictions. We either conducted on-site interviews with or obtained  information from election officials, CBO representatives, and, to a limited  extent, language minority voters in the 14 jurisdictions regarding the  bilingual voting assistance provided during the November 2006 general  election and any subsequent elections through June 2007. In addition, we  obtained and reviewed supporting documentation as evidence of the types  of bilingual voting assistance (e.g., sample ballots, pamphlets, voter  education materials, etc.) reportedly provided to language minority voters  in these jurisdictions. We also obtained these election officials’ and CBO  representatives’ perceptions about the usefulness of bilingual voting  assistance to language minority voters as well as information on any  efforts to evaluate its usefulness. Because we selected a nongeneralizable  sample of election jurisdictions, the experiences and views discussed in  this report cannot be generalized to all 296 jurisdictions required to  provide bilingual voting assistance under Section 203 of the Voting Rights  Act.
In addition to the information we obtained from these jurisdictions, we  conducted interviews with and obtained information from other sources.  We interviewed officials and obtained pertinent documents from the U.S.  Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for  providing program guidance and enforcing compliance with the  requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We also  interviewed officials from the U. S. Election Assistance Commission  (EAC), which was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002  (HAVA) to serve, among other things, as a clearinghouse and information  resource for election officials with respect to the administration of federal  elections. Additionally, we interviewed the Chief of the Census Bureau  office that determines which jurisdictions are covered under Section 203  of the Voting Rights Act. We reviewed pertinent federal laws, regulations,  and agency guidance pertaining to the Section 203 bilingual voting  provisions. We also reviewed prior GAO work, other national studies,  reports and news articles, attended several national conferences, and  interviewed the secretary of state for one state with jurisdictions covered  by Section 203 to gain further insight regarding these issues. We  conducted this performance audit from October 2006 to January 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Bilingual Voting Requirements and Covered Jurisdictions
paragraphs: The Voting Rights Act was intended, among other things, to protect the  voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of  the English language may be limited. Language minority provisions  contained in Section 203 require covered states and covered  jurisdictions—political subdivisions—that meet the act’s coverage criteria  to provide written materials and other assistance, in the language of  certain “language minority groups,” in addition to English. Section 203  defines these language minorities as persons who are of Alaskan Native,  American Indian, Asian American, or Spanish heritage. (See app. II for the  specific criteria for determining which jurisdictions are to be covered  under Section 203 and a list of the covered jurisdictions.)
Where the applicable language minority groups have a commonly used  written language, Section 203 requires covered jurisdictions to provide  written election materials in the languages of the groups. Where the  language of the applicable minority group is oral or unwritten, or in the  case of American Indian and Alaskan Native languages if the predominant  language is historically unwritten, only oral information and assistance is  required. With respect to all covered jurisdictions, DOJ guidance provides  that oral assistance and publicity (e.g., public information advertisements  on the radio) should be provided to the extent needed to enable members  of the applicable language minority group to participate effectively in the  electoral process. Section 203 requirements apply to the entire election  process—from voter registration through Election Day—for all federal,  state, and local elections in the covered jurisdictions.
The DOJ Civil Rights Division is to enforce the covered states and  jurisdictions’ compliance with the Section 203 bilingual language  requirements. Where covered states and jurisdictions fail to comply with  the provisions, DOJ may bring a civil action to enforce compliance with  the bilingual language provisions. DOJ may also choose to enter into a  settlement agreement, memorandum of agreement, or consent decree with  a jurisdiction to ensure compliance. These agreements, which may vary  from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, outline the steps necessary to comply  with the language provisions and may cover issues such as the number of  bilingual poll workers needed or the materials to be translated. (See      app. III for a list of jurisdictions that have been subject to DOJ actions  related to Section 203 since 1980.)
DOJ has published general guidance for election officials on how to  comply with Section 203 in the Code of Federal Regulations and on its  Web site. This guidance provides broad information about a number of  topics, including determining the exact language covered within the  Alaskan Native, American Indian, Asian American, or Spanish heritage  language groups and the activities affected by the language provisions. For  example, according to DOJ, jurisdictions should take all reasonable steps  to allow members of applicable language minority groups to be effectively  informed and participate effectively in the electoral process, but may also  exercise some discretion as to where they focus their efforts. DOJ  guidance notes that a jurisdiction need not, for example, provide bilingual  assistance to all of its eligible voters if it effectively targets its bilingual  program to those in actual need of assistance. In addition, DOJ guidance  advises that compliance is more likely to be achieved when jurisdictions  work with local language minority groups to determine the best methods  to inform the language minority community about available assistance.  Additionally, DOJ instructs that when evaluating whether a jurisdiction  has provided a level of oral assistance needed to enable applicable  language minority groups to participate effectively in the electoral process,  DOJ will consider the number of bilingual poll workers utilized. It also  stresses the importance of accurately translated materials. Furthermore,  the DOJ Civil Rights Division states that its guidance cannot be  prescriptive because election systems and the circumstances of language  minority communities vary widely across the United States. Instead, DOJ  provides guiding principles and practical suggestions to election officials.
Apart from DOJ’s compliance guidelines, election jurisdictions, including  those covered by Section 203, may also receive information from the EAC  designed to assist election officials in meeting the needs of limited-English  proficient voters. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) established  the EAC to assist in the administration of federal elections and to  otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain federal  election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration  standards for states and units of local government with responsibility for  the administration of federal elections, and for other purposes. Section 202  of HAVA, in general, directs the EAC to serve as a national clearinghouse  and resource for the compilation of information and review of procedures  with respect to the administration of federal elections. In addition, Section  801 of HAVA transferred to the EAC all clearinghouse functions that the  Office of Election Administration—established within the Federal Election  Commission—exercised before the enactment of HAVA. These  responsibilities included providing recommendations and tools so that  election officials could provide materials in alternate languages for limited  English proficiency voters. Furthermore, HAVA requires the EAC to  conduct periodic studies, as the EAC may determine, to include:               (1) methods of ensuring the accessibility of voting, registration, polling  places, and voting equipment to all voters, including individuals with  disabilities (including the blind and visually impaired), Native American or  Alaska Native citizens, and voters with limited proficiency in the English  language, and (2) the technical feasibility of providing voting materials in  eight or more languages for voters who speak those languages and who  have limited English proficiency.
section_title: The U.S. Election System
paragraphs: The U.S. election system is highly decentralized, with primary  responsibility for managing, planning, and conducting elections residing at  the local jurisdiction level. As we reported in June 2006, there are about  10,500 local government jurisdictions responsible for conducting  statewide and federal elections nationwide. Of these jurisdictions, only  296 are covered by Section 203. States can be divided into two groups   according to how they delegate election responsibilities to local  jurisdictions:    Most states delegate statewide and federal election responsibilities  primarily to counties, with a few of these states delegating these  responsibilities to some cities. One state, Alaska, is divided into four  election regions comprised of boroughs, municipalities, and other  census areas known by the U.S. Census Bureau as county equivalents.  State personnel in these regions are responsible for conducting  statewide and federal elections. This first group of states contains  about one-fourth of the local election jurisdictions nationwide.
The remaining states delegate these election responsibilities to  subcounty governmental units know by the U.S. Census Bureau as  minor civil divisions. These include entities such as cities, towns,  villages, and townships. This second group of states contains about  three-fourths of the local election jurisdictions nationwide.
Nearly all of the 296 jurisdictions covered under Section 203 are counties,  but they also include county equivalents in some states and minor civil  divisions. In addition to all elections conducted by these jurisdictions, the  provisions of Section 203 also apply to the local elections conducted by  sub-jurisdictions, such as cities, towns, school districts and other special  purpose districts, contained within these listed jurisdictions.
Local election jurisdictions vary widely in size and complexity, ranging  from small New England townships to Los Angeles County, Calif., whose  number of registered voters exceeds that of many states. Our election  system is based upon a complex interaction of people (voters, election  officials, and poll workers), processes (controls), and technology that  must work effectively together to achieve a successful election. Every  stage of the election process—registration, absentee and early voting,  preparing for and conducting Election Day activities, and provisional  voting—is affected by the interface of people, processes, and technology.  (See table 1 for a discussion of the stages of the election process.)
section_title: Prior Work Related to the Elections Process
paragraphs: Over the years we have completed a number of reviews related to  elections. In 1986 and 1997 we issued reports addressing the types of  bilingual assistance provided by covered jurisdictions, as well as the cost  of this assistance. In our 1997 report, we found that most jurisdictions  reportedly were providing both oral and written assistance. We also issued  a series of reports following the November 2000 general election  addressing a range of issues that emerged during that election and  identifying challenges that election officials reported facing throughout  the election process. In addition, we have issued reports since the  November 2004 general election on voter registration issues and security  and reliability of electronic voting. In 2006, we reported on a wide array of  election issues including discussing, at each major stage of the election  process, changes to election systems since the 2000 election, and  challenges encountered in the November 2004 general election. (See  related GAO products at the end of this report for a list of our prior work.)
In addition to our work on elections, professors at Arizona State  University released a comprehensive study in March 2006 regarding  language minority assistance practices in public elections. Their study,  based on survey data obtained from jurisdictions currently or previously  covered by Section 203, updated the information from our 1986 and 1997  reports regarding the costs associated with providing language assistance  and also discussed the types of assistance provided. About half of the  surveyed jurisdictions responded, and of the respondents, a majority was  unable to provide the costs of their bilingual assistance programs.  Additionally, just over 80 percent of responding jurisdictions reported  providing some type of language assistance.
section_title: Election Officials in All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing Bilingual Voting Assistance, but Experienced Challenges
paragraphs: Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions included in our review  reported providing some type of bilingual voting assistance at each stage  of the election process but also reported challenges in providing this  assistance. In part because DOJ’s guidance intentionally provides  jurisdictions some flexibility in how they implement bilingual voting  requirements and the needs and preferences of language minority  communities vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, election officials in  these 13 jurisdictions reported using varying strategies to organize their  bilingual voting assistance program staff and offices, work with CBOs,  recruit bilingual poll workers, determine where to target their bilingual  voting assistance programs, and conduct outreach to the language  minority community. In addition, election officials in these 13 jurisdictions  also reported experiencing a variety of challenges in providing bilingual  assistance, with the key challenges being: (1) recruiting and ensuring  quality performance of bilingual poll workers; (2) targeting bilingual voting  assistance; (3) designing and translating bilingual voting assistance  materials; and (4) allocating sufficient resources to provide bilingual  voting assistance. Although election officials in 12 jurisdictions reported  receiving some degree of guidance or assistance for addressing Section  203 requirements from DOJ and other sources, officials in 9 jurisdictions  reported wanting additional guidance or assistance. The EAC has taken  recent steps to provide additional guidance and information to  jurisdictions on providing bilingual assistance.
subsections: section_title: All But One Jurisdiction Reported Providing Some Type of Bilingual Voting Assistance throughout the Election Process
paragraphs: Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions reported providing some type  of written assistance and/or oral assistance for language minority voters.  This assistance was provided throughout the election process—from voter  registration to Election Day. Written assistance included such things as  translated voter registration forms, ballots, sample ballots, instructions,  and signs. Oral assistance included bilingual phone and in-office  assistance, translated audio instructions and ballots, bilingual poll  workers, and bilingual in-person outreach activities. The various types of  bilingual voting assistance and the numbers of jurisdictions that reported  providing each type of assistance at each stage of the election process are  summarized in table 2.
Election officials in 12 jurisdictions reported providing some type of  bilingual voter registration assistance and 11 of these jurisdictions  reported offering both oral and written assistance. All but four election  offices included in our study reported providing translated voter  registration forms and all but two reported conducting in-person voter  registration outreach activities targeted at the language minority  community. Election offices reported a wide range of venues and  methods—such as staff participation in community parades and at  swearing in ceremonies for new citizens—to conduct voter registration  outreach to the language minority community. In addition to these  outreach activities, representatives of most election offices also reported  offering bilingual voter registration assistance to individuals who phoned  or visited the election office. (See table 3 for examples of written and oral  bilingual assistance reportedly provided to assist language minority  community voters with voter registration.)
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions included in our study  reported providing some form of bilingual voting assistance for absentee  and/or early voting. The most common type of assistance (12  jurisdictions) was bilingual ballots or separate translated ballots for  absentee or early voters. Other types of assistance provided by varying  numbers of jurisdictions included bilingual or separate translated absentee  voter registration forms; sample ballots and voting instructions; bilingual  phone assistance; bilingual in-office assistance; and bilingual poll workers  at early voting locations. (See table 4 for examples of written and oral  bilingual assistance reportedly provided to minority language absentee  and early voters.)
Election officials in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions reported providing some type  of written and/or oral assistance for language minority voters on Election  Day. As with absentee and early voting assistance, one of the most  common types of written assistance reportedly provided on Election Day  was bilingual ballots or separate translated written ballots, which were  reportedly provided in 12 of the jurisdictions. The most common form of  oral bilingual voting assistance reportedly provided on Election Day was  bilingual poll workers, who were provided in 13 jurisdictions. Two  jurisdictions reportedly provided audio translations for largely unwritten  Native American languages. (See table 5 for examples of written and oral  bilingual assistance reportedly provided on Election Day.)
See appendix IV for examples of bilingual materials reportedly available to  voters in some of the locations we visited.
subsections: section_title: Bilingual Assistance Reported by Community-Based Organizations
paragraphs: CBOs reported providing various types of bilingual voting assistance in  nine of the jurisdictions included in our study. Seven key types of  assistance that CBOs reported providing were:  Informing the language minority community about voting (reportedly  provided by CBOs in nine jurisdictions);    Registering language minority voters (8);    Providing assistance to language minority voters on Election Day (7);    Helping determine the types of bilingual voting assistance needed and  which voters need it (7);  Informing language minority voters about early and/or absentee voting  (6);    Recruiting and training bilingual poll workers (6); and    Helping translate or design the bilingual or translated ballot (4).
The bilingual voting assistance provided by CBOs generally took one of  three forms: supplementing election office efforts, working with election  offices to provide assistance, or providing assistance that otherwise was  not provided by the election office. For example, some CBO  representatives reported providing types of assistance similar to those  offered by election offices, such as registering language minority citizens  to vote or answering voters’ questions. Other CBO representatives  reported helping election officials provide assistance, such as helping to  recruit bilingual poll workers or translating official election materials.  Finally, some CBO representatives reported conducting activities related  to bilingual voting assistance that election officials did not do, such as  employing poll monitors and providing language minority voters with  transportation to the polls on Election Day. Some examples of the specific  activities the 38 CBOs included in our study reported undertaking as part  of their bilingual voting assistance efforts are summarized in table 6.
section_title: Jurisdictions Reported Using Various Strategies to Implement Their Bilingual Voting Assistance Programs
paragraphs: Election officials in jurisdictions included in our review reported using  varying strategies to implement their bilingual voting assistance programs.  These strategies included combinations of (1) employing bilingual voting  assistance coordinators; (2) working with CBOs; (3) recruiting bilingual  poll workers; (4) determining where to target their bilingual voting  assistance programs; and (5) conducting outreach to the language  minority community. The range of election office strategies may be due in  part to the flexibility of the guidance that the DOJ Civil Rights Division  provides to help covered jurisdictions address the requirements of Section  203, as the guidance places the responsibility of determining how best to  provide the required assistance with the individual jurisdictions. DOJ  states that its guidance is intentionally flexible because the needs and  preferences of language minority communities vary from jurisdiction to  jurisdiction. This flexibility allows election offices to tailor their programs  to try to meet their jurisdiction’s unique needs.
subsections: section_title: Nine Jurisdictions Employed Bilingual Voting Assistance Coordinators
paragraphs: Election officials in nine of the jurisdictions included in our study reported  that they employed dedicated coordinators to manage their bilingual  voting assistance programs. Officials in two of these offices noted that  employing a bilingual voting assistance coordinator who was familiar with  the demographics of the local language minority communities was  particularly helpful in effectively determining where to target their  bilingual voting assistance. In addition, election offices in four of the six  jurisdictions that were required to provide assistance in more than one  language reported having at least one designated staff for each covered  language minority group. For example, the Orange County, Calif., registrar  of voters reported having one or two bilingual “community program  specialists” devoted to bilingual voting assistance in each of its covered  languages—Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
section_title: Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Worked with Community-Based Organizations but Differed in Their Approach and Extent of Activities
paragraphs: Election officials in 10 of the 14 jurisdictions reported that they worked  with CBOs in providing bilingual voting assistance. Of these, officials in  seven reported having formal election advisory committees or task forces  that included CBO representatives. Election officials reported that some of  these advisory committees provided input such as feedback on elections,  comments on translated election materials, and suggestions for targeting  bilingual voting assistance. For example, in King County, Wash., the  election office reportedly received guidance and assistance from a  “Section 203 Community Coalition,” which was comprised of five CBOs  representing the Chinese community. According to coalition members, the  coalition worked closely with the election office, meeting as often as twice  a month. In one example of their collaboration, King County’s “Section 203  Community Coalition” reportedly introduced the idea of conducting  surname analysis to identify Chinese-speaking potential voters and then  mail the identified individuals a postcard notifying them about bilingual  voting assistance and encouraging them to return the postcard to the King  County Elections Department if they would like to receive future elections  materials in Chinese. The coalition conducted the analysis, the county paid  for the mailing, and both parties told us it was a very successful  collaborative effort.
The three elections offices that reported working with CBOs but did not  report having formal advisory committees reportedly worked with CBOs  in other ways. For example, Seward County, Kans., election officials  reported working with CBOs on voter outreach to minority language  voters by distributing bilingual voter registration cards. Similarly, Suffolk  County, N.Y., election officials reported working and communicating  regularly with a network of CBOs to disseminate election information to  language minority voters through churches, community centers, and  households. Suffolk County election officials stated that their relationships  with CBOs were very helpful because they facilitated voter outreach and  expanded the Bureau of Elections’ access to people in the language  minority community.
section_title: Most Jurisdictions We Contacted Had Bilingual Poll Workers and Used Multiple Methods to Recruit Them
paragraphs: Election officials in 13 jurisdictions we contacted reported recruiting  bilingual poll workers through a combination of efforts. These efforts  included: (1) contacting CBOs and language minority media, (2) posting  recruitment materials in language minority neighborhoods, (3) contacting  potential poll workers directly, (4) recruiting from the public and private  sector employers, and (5) conducting direct mailings. According to  officials in nine jurisdictions, one method of recruiting bilingual poll  workers was communication with representatives of CBOs or the minority  community who facilitated contacting and recruiting bilingual poll  workers. In addition, election officials in some jurisdictions reported using  language minority media such as in-language radio, television, and  newspapers to encourage members of the language minority community to  serve as bilingual poll workers. For example, an election official in King  County, Wash., reported success with a televised public service  announcement featuring a Chinese American former Governor of  Washington State encouraging other Chinese Americans to volunteer as  bilingual poll workers. Five elections offices reported posting signs in  language minority neighborhoods—in schools, libraries, stores, and civic  associations—to recruit bilingual poll workers. In the City of Los Angeles,  election officials reported posting signs in ethnic grocery stores in  language minority neighborhoods to recruit bilingual poll workers.  Election officials in five jurisdictions also reported recruiting bilingual poll  workers through in-person contact with potential applicants at language  minority community events, through e-mail messages, and by making  targeted phone calls. Other jurisdictions reported more success in  recruiting either high school or college students to be bilingual poll  workers than did those who tried recruiting bilingual poll workers from  the private sector. Representatives of several election offices reported  supplementing these efforts by recruiting local government employees to  be bilingual poll workers. Finally, in three of the election offices we  contacted, officials stated that direct mailings were used to recruit  bilingual poll workers.
section_title: Jurisdictions’ Targeting of Bilingual Voting Assistance Efforts Involved a Combination of Approaches
paragraphs: To determine where to target their bilingual voting assistance efforts,  election officials in many of the jurisdictions we contacted reported using  some combination of surname analysis, reviews of U.S. Census Bureau  and other demographic data, input from CBOs, and analysis of voter  requests for bilingual voting information. Specifically, these efforts  included the following:    Analyzing surnames: Election officials in eight jurisdictions reported  using surname analysis to try to identify those areas within a  jurisdiction that contain a higher concentration of voting age citizens  with surnames indicative of the covered minority language. A few  election officials stated that surname analysis was most helpful in  identifying language minority individuals in largely homogeneous  communities or in identifying neighborhoods that were undergoing  demographic transitions and experiencing an influx of new language  minority communities. Other election officials reported that although  surname analysis may not have been an accurate tool, it was an  approach prescribed in a legal agreement negotiated with the DOJ Civil  Rights Division. As a result, officials chose to use surname analysis, but  in combination with other targeting approaches. Officials with the DOJ  Civil Rights Division noted that in many of the agreements reached  between the Civil Rights Division and local election officials, surname  analysis was used—in the absence of other reliable data—as a starting  point for determining appropriate sites for bilingual poll workers.
Analyzing demographic data: Election officials in some jurisdictions  reported using demographic data and information from the U.S. Census  Bureau and other sources to identify language minority communities  within their jurisdictions. For example, due to concerns that surname  analysis alone was not allowing them to effectively target assistance,  election officials in Harris County, Tex., told us they hired a contractor  to use Census data to identify areas with population concentrations of  language minority individuals within their jurisdiction. Election  officials in Montgomery County, Md., reported using a combination of  Census data and other data sources such as demographic statistics on  students in the jurisdiction’s public school system to target those  precincts with the greatest need for bilingual voting assistance.
Obtaining input from CBOs: Election officials in nine jurisdictions  reported obtaining input from CBOs to better target their bilingual  voting assistance programs. Officials in seven of the election offices we  contacted reported seeking targeting guidance from their language  minority advisory committees. For example, an election official in  Montgomery County, Md., reported that their multicultural outreach  committee has been very helpful in identifying which voters need  bilingual voting assistance, the types of assistance to be provided, and  at which precincts assistance needs to be provided. In Los Angeles  County, Calif., election officials stated that they obtained input from  CBOs as part of their systematic targeting process to identify precincts  that may need bilingual voting assistance—if a community partner  organization indicated that a neighborhood should be targeted for a  particular language, the polling places in that neighborhood were  considered “targeted.”
Analyzing voter requests: Officials in four election offices reported  utilizing records of past voter requests for or use of bilingual voting  assistance to target future bilingual voting assistance efforts. For  example, some officials reported collecting data on requests for  bilingual assistance noted on voter registration cards, absentee ballot  request forms, and phone calls to the elections office. In addition,  election officials in three jurisdictions reported asking poll workers to  record the number of requests for bilingual voting assistance on  Election Day. Election officials in Los Angeles County, Calif., for  example, reported that they tracked requests for language assistance  by precinct and had poll workers use a “multilingual tally card” to keep  track of the numbers of voters requesting language assistance on  Election Day. (An example of a multilingual tally card used in Los  Angeles County is provided in app. IV.) Election officials in five  jurisdictions, however, stated that they did not or could not track voter  requests for assistance. For example, Seward County, Kans., election  officials stated that Kansas state law forbids the election office from  tracking individuals’ requests for bilingual voting assistance. Similarly,  an election official in Montgomery County, Md., reported that due to  personal privacy concerns, the county did not track usage of bilingual  voting assistance. Election officials in Harris County, Tex., noted that  their state-issued voter registration forms did not have a place for  registrants to indicate their preferred language; therefore, it was not  possible for the local jurisdictions to track requests for assistance using  voter registration forms.
section_title: Most Jurisdictions Conducted Outreach but Reportedly Used Diverse Methods to Engage Language Minority Communities
paragraphs: Election officials in 13 jurisdictions told us that they used various  strategies to reach out to language minority voters to inform them of the  availability of bilingual voting assistance and to educate them about the  election process. These strategies included working with CBOs; using  ethnic media outlets; conducting in-person contacts; and posting bilingual  voting information on the Internet. Specifically, these efforts included the  following:    Working with CBOs: Election officials in nine jurisdictions reported  working with representatives of CBOs to conduct bilingual outreach  and voter education. For example, Suffolk County, N.Y., election  officials stated that they worked closely with the network of  organizations active in their language minority communities to  disseminate election information to churches, community centers, and  households in their efforts to reach language minority voters. Election  officials in the City of Boston reported that they communicated  regularly with the CBO representatives that participate in the city’s  Voter Outreach and Education Task Force, and that the CBOs played  an active, necessary role in disseminating bilingual voting assistance  information. Similarly, election officials in King County, Wash.,  reported that CBOs provided substantial amounts of outreach,  workshops, and seminars informing and educating language minorities  of the availability of election materials and how to use the new voting  system implemented in the jurisdiction.
Using media outlets: Jurisdictions reported using a variety of media  outlets to conduct bilingual outreach and voter education. Election  officials in most of the jurisdictions included in our study reported  using print media, radio or televised public service announcements to  conduct bilingual outreach, and the types of media used sometimes  varied among the targeted language minority communities. For  example, election officials in Orange County, Calif., reported using  Spanish-speaking television stations to target information to the Latino  community but that using Vietnamese radio stations and newspapers  were more effective for reaching the Vietnamese community. Election  officials in the City of Boston reported that they worked with the  Ethnic Media Studies Department at the University of Massachusetts to  determine what ethnic media outlets were most used by the language  minority community in their jurisdiction. Finally, election officials in  six jurisdictions also reported using targeted translated mailings to  inform the covered language minority community about election  processes and important voter information. These included translated  voter registration forms, sample ballots, and voting instructions.
Using in-person contact: Election officials in 11 jurisdictions reported  using in-person contact with the language minority community as  another means to inform targeted individuals about the availability of  bilingual voting assistance and to educate them on election processes.  For example, election officials for the City of Boston reported that in- person contact was the most effective outreach method in their  jurisdiction. As a result, their staff attended and registered voters at  language minority community forums and swearing-in ceremonies for  new citizens. Election officials in other jurisdictions also reported that  they visited language minority community events or locations such as  festivals and libraries to conduct voter outreach and education. For  example, an election official in King County, Wash., stated that she  participated in voter education forums held by a CBO to talk through  the voter’s pamphlet with Chinese-speaking voters, provide  instructions on how to fill out the ballot, and encourage participants to  share their knowledge with others in the language minority community.
Posting information on the Internet: Officials in 11 of the election  offices we contacted reported posting bilingual voting assistance  materials and information on their websites, though to varying extents.  For example, election officials in Harris County, Tex., told us they  translated aspects of their Web site to provide language minority  individuals with essential voting information, including important  dates, early voting and Election Day information, sample ballots, and  information on how to operate the jurisdiction’s voting system. In  contrast, Orange County, Calif., election officials reported that nearly  all of the web content provided in English is available in each of the  four covered languages. Los Angeles County, Calif., election officials  reported focusing their Web site’s language content on frequently  utilized materials while working to make more election procedures  available in the county’s required minority languages.
section_title: All 14 Jurisdictions Reported Challenges in Providing Bilingual Voting Assistance
paragraphs: All 14 jurisdictions we contacted reported experiencing challenges in  providing bilingual assistance, with the key challenges related to:              (1) recruiting and ensuring quality performance of bilingual poll workers,  (2) targeting bilingual voting assistance, (3) designing and translating  bilingual voting assistance materials, and (4) allocating sufficient  resources to bilingual voting assistance. In addition to identifying these  key challenges, officials in nine jurisdictions expressed a desire for more  guidance or assistance on providing bilingual voting assistance.
subsections: section_title: Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Recruiting Bilingual Poll Workers and with Bilingual Poll Worker Performance
paragraphs: Election officials in nine of the jurisdictions stated that they had difficulty  recruiting bilingual poll workers for a variety of reasons. For example, five  jurisdictions reported that recruiting was difficult because of the long  hours and minimal pay provided to bilingual poll workers—they believed  that many individuals in the language minority communities had multiple  jobs and could not afford to commit to the long hours required of a  bilingual poll worker on Election Day. Election officials in five  jurisdictions also added that it was a challenge to recruit bilingual poll  workers who were willing to serve at a polling place outside their home  precinct. In their experience, some bilingual poll workers either did not  have the means to travel to other polling sites or were reluctant to do so.  In addition, demographic shifts in some jurisdictions reportedly created  recruiting challenges. For example, representatives of four election offices  stated that recruiting was especially challenging for new language minority  communities with only a very limited pool of potential bilingual volunteers  or when members of the language minority community that are fluent in  the covered language are decreasing in numbers due to aging. In one  jurisdiction, an election official reported that some voters who reside in  areas that are not historically language minority communities do not want  to be identified as language minority speakers; therefore, they hesitate to  volunteer.
In addition to recruiting problems, representatives of election offices from  two jurisdictions reported that they experienced challenges related to  bilingual poll worker performance. For example, election officials in Los  Angeles County, Calif., stated that, in their experience, the performance of  bilingual poll workers has been adversely affected by poor treatment by  other poll workers that did not recognize the importance of providing  bilingual voting assistance. Election officials in this jurisdiction also stated  that CBOs have complained in the past that some of the bilingual poll  workers were unwilling to assist language minority voters due to  differences in their personal and cultural backgrounds, noting that  acculturating new bilingual poll workers into the election environment  was an issue they needed to address. In addition, election officials in this  jurisdiction mentioned that while cultural sensitivity and diversity training  was included in their general poll worker training, it was very difficult to  spend sufficient time on the topic when there was a great deal of material  to cover during the brief poll worker training time available. Similarly,  election officials in the City of Boston reported difficulty managing some  veteran poll workers who were reticent to use the training associated with  the bilingual voting aspects of their job. According to these officials,  expanding the length of training to address these issues has not been an  option because trainees’ attention to the material covered was limited to a  certain amount of time, attendance is not required, and it could increase  costs associated with the training.
section_title: Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Targeting Those Voters Who Needed Bilingual Voting Assistance
paragraphs: Election officials in eight of the jurisdictions we contacted reported that  limitations in surname analysis, U.S. Census Bureau data, or demographic  shifts in their jurisdictions made it difficult to effectively target bilingual  voting assistance. Election officials in several jurisdictions reported that  surname analysis did not accurately indicate whether individuals were  actually limited-English proficient or proficient in the covered language,  and added that surname analysis may overstate the need for bilingual  assistance in particular precincts. Election officials in Los Angeles County,  Calif., also noted that surname analysis was not useful in jurisdictions  containing multiple language minority groups, especially those with many  overlapping surnames. For example, these officials reported that it was  very difficult to correctly distinguish between members of the Filipino and  Spanish-speaking communities using surname analysis because Filipino  surnames overlap with Spanish surnames.
Election officials in some jurisdictions also asserted that U.S. Census  Bureau data are not accurate or detailed enough to enable them to  effectively target language minority voters or, in some cases, determine  the precise dialect a covered language minority community speaks. For  example, Suffolk County, N.Y., election officials reported that they have  had challenges targeting language minority individuals who are eligible to  register and vote due to the number of undocumented persons included in  Census data who are not registered to vote. In addition, election officials  for Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, explained that while the Census data  identified the jurisdiction as requiring bilingual voting assistance in  American Indian and Aleut languages, it is not clear what specific  languages or dialects officials should target. Some election officials also  explained that targeting bilingual voting assistance can be more difficult  when the language minority communities are not concentrated in discrete  geographic areas within the jurisdiction. For example, Los Angeles  County, Calif., election officials reported that the diversity of the county’s  population and its constant demographic shifts require their office to  modify their targeted precincts every 2 years, whereas Census data for  jurisdictions covered under Section 203 are currently updated every 10  years.
section_title: Many Jurisdictions Reported Difficulties Designing or Translating Bilingual Voting Assistance Materials
paragraphs: Election officials in nine jurisdictions reported difficulties designing or  translating their bilingual voting assistance materials. Election officials  reported that translating ballot language was particularly challenging  because of differences in the meanings of words in various dialects of a  given language or difficulties finding comparable phrasing in the covered  language. Some election officials reported that this challenge was  exacerbated by the limited time they had to review and correct errors  before printing and distributing the election materials. For example,  election officials in Montgomery County, Md., reported that they operated  under short time frames with the vendors that produced their materials  and had just 7 days to proof the ballot layout, design, spelling, audio  pronunciation, touch screen text, and optical scan text before the  materials had to be printed. In addition, some election officials noted that  a translated ballot in a minority language is often longer than the English  version—this difference in text length made it difficult to design a user- friendly bilingual ballot.
section_title: Some Jurisdictions Reported Difficulty Allocating Sufficient Resources to Their Bilingual Voting Assistance Efforts
paragraphs: Election officials in 11 jurisdictions reported that they had difficulty  allocating either sufficient staff or financial resources to their bilingual  voting assistance efforts. Election officials in five jurisdictions stated that  additional staff would allow them to more effectively conduct outreach to  the language minority communities. For example, an election official from  Miami-Dade County, Fla., stated that having limited staff available to send  to language minority communities has made it more difficult to educate  language minority voters about the election process. Additionally, election  officials in two jurisdictions stated that having sufficient staff would allow  them to more effectively translate and review the written and oral  assistance provided. In Montgomery County, Md., election officials  reported that they rely heavily on unpaid community volunteers but with  additional funding the county could conduct more outreach activities.
section_title: Many Election Officials We Contacted Desired Additional Guidance and Information on Providing Bilingual Assistance
paragraphs: Although officials in 12 jurisdictions reported receiving some degree of  guidance or assistance from DOJ or other sources, officials in 9  jurisdictions also reported that more guidance or assistance may be  helpful. For example, election officials in the City of Boston stated that  they received some assistance from DOJ in the past, but that additional  guidance and greater coordination among jurisdictions that provide  bilingual voting assistance would also be beneficial. These officials told us  they had taken the initiative to communicate with other covered  jurisdictions to learn about their approaches to providing bilingual voting  assistance but believed that a more organized system for information  sharing between jurisdictions would be useful. These same views were  echoed by election officials participating in discussion sessions we held on  bilingual voting assistance during two national election conferences on  election issues sponsored by the Election Center in 2007. Specifically, in  both discussion sessions, several election officials noted that additional  guidance and greater coordination among jurisdictions that provide  bilingual voting assistance would be beneficial. In addition, an official  from a jurisdiction included in our study stated that the Secretary of  State’s Office and DOJ had offered assistance, but little to none had been  received. Election officials in five jurisdictions that reported receiving  guidance or assistance from DOJ stated that some of the assistance was  not helpful, accurate, or reliable. Officials with the DOJ Civil Rights  Division stated that their office offers guidance and assistance to local  election officials on how to comply with Section 203, but it is the  responsibility of covered jurisdictions to determine what languages, forms  of languages, or dialects will be effective in their jurisdictions.  Furthermore, these officials stated that its guidance is intentionally  flexible because election systems and the circumstances of language  minority communities vary widely across the United States. Instead, DOJ  states that it provides guiding principles and practical suggestions for  election officials to use. DOJ officials also noted that they have taken steps  to make covered jurisdictions aware of this guidance, including  conducting in-person visits with newly-covered jurisdictions as well as  making presentations to state and local election officials through national  groups and associations.
section_title: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Has Taken Recent Steps to Provide Additional Guidance and Information to Jurisdictions on Providing Bilingual Assistance
paragraphs: The EAC has taken steps to provide guidance on bilingual voting  assistance as part of its responsibilities under HAVA to serve as a national  clearinghouse and resource for information with respect to the  administration of federal elections. For example, the EAC formed a  Language Accessibility Program that has taken steps to provide  recommendations and tools to election officials on providing bilingual  voting assistance. In April 2007, the EAC published English-to-Spanish and  Spanish-to-English versions of a glossary of over 1,800 election terms and  phrases used in the administration of elections. The glossary was designed  to assist state and local election officials in providing translated election  materials that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. In addition, in  September 2007, the EAC awarded a contract to translate this glossary into  five additional languages covered under Section 203: Chinese, Japanese,  Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, with an anticipated glossary publication  date of May 2008. The EAC also issued two guidebooks on recruiting and  training poll workers that included suggestions on serving the needs of  language minority voters. For example, one of the guidebooks included a  section on partnering with civic organizations to recruit bilingual poll  workers, and the other guidebook included a chapter on recruiting  bilingual college students to serve as poll workers.
In addition to its completed publications, the EAC has other assistance  efforts planned in response to recent concerns voiced by election officials  to the EAC regarding the need for additional guidance and information on  providing bilingual assistance. For example, the EAC plans to dedicate a  future chapter of its set of Election Management Guidelines to the topic of  language accessibility. EAC officials reported that this language  accessibility chapter (and accompanying brochure) will address strategies  for election officials to consider and implement when providing elections  services to voters with limited English proficiency throughout the election  process. The EAC plans to develop this guidance by consulting election  officials and professionals with first-hand experience managing elections  in order to identify and develop the key content the publications should  address. EAC officials noted that this process should begin in April 2008,  and final publications should be released to the public by the end of that  year. After its initial set of Election Management Guidelines has been  completed, the EAC plans to regularly assess the need to cover other topic  areas and update previous materials to maintain current and relevant  information in the guidelines.
section_title: Some Forms of Bilingual Voting Assistance Were Perceived as More Useful than Others, but Formally Evaluating Its Usefulness Presented Many Challenges
paragraphs: Although we identified little data measuring the usefulness of various  types of bilingual voting assistance, election officials in eight jurisdictions  and CBO representatives in seven jurisdictions in our study told us that  they believed certain forms of assistance were more useful than others. In  addition, none of the jurisdictions had formally evaluated the effectiveness  of their bilingual voting assistance programs, although most had used  some means of gathering information about elements of the assistance  provided. Election officials in 10 jurisdictions and CBO representatives in  9 jurisdictions also stated that modifications could be made that would  improve the usefulness of the bilingual services provided to voters. While  the use of formal program evaluation tools has proven to be a successful  means for federal agencies to improve program effectiveness,  accountability, and service delivery, conducting formal evaluations of the  usefulness and effect of bilingual voting assistance is difficult for a variety  of reasons. Three key difficulties include (1) identifying the objectives and  appropriate indicators of success, (2) determining how to measure these  indicators once they have been identified, and (3) isolating the effects of  bilingual voting assistance efforts on language minority voters from more  general voter outreach efforts or other influences on election processes.
subsections: section_title: Certain Types of Assistance Were Viewed as More Useful than Others
paragraphs: Although the election jurisdictions and CBOs we met with had not  conducted any formal evaluations of the bilingual assistance they  provided, the majority of both believed that the assistance that the election  offices provided was useful to language minority voters. Specifically,  election officials we met with in 12 of 14 jurisdictions and leaders of CBOs  in 10 of 11 jurisdictions believed that the bilingual voting assistance  provided by the election offices was useful to language minority voters  and helped improve their participation in the voting process. However,  some types of bilingual assistance were viewed as more useful than others.  (See table 7 for the types of bilingual voting assistance identified as most  useful.)
Both election officials and CBO representatives generally agreed that  having bilingual poll workers available on Election Day was among the  most useful forms of assistance to voters. As noted above, election  officials and CBO representatives in some jurisdictions also believed that  having translated written materials was among the most useful forms of  assistance. For example, a CBO representative in Harris County, Tex., told  us that having bilingual voting guides, sample ballots, and other election  materials was more useful to voters than having bilingual poll workers  available on Election Day. He explained that members of the community  preferred to have translated written materials that they could study in  their homes and discuss with family members prior to the election rather  than waiting to get assistance from bilingual poll workers on Election Day.
In limited instances, bilingual voting assistance was not viewed as useful.  In two jurisdictions, the limited use of the bilingual voting assistance by  voters led election officials to question its usefulness. For example,  officials with the Harris County, Tex., tax assessor’s office (which is  responsible for voter registration in the county) provided us with some  data that indicated a low usage of translated voter registration  applications. During calendar year 2006 and through June 2007, the office  distributed roughly 97,000 voter registration applications in Vietnamese  and roughly 173,000 in Spanish by placing them at branches of the tax  assessor’s office, public libraries, and Texas Department of Public Safety  locations, as well as distributing them during community outreach events.  However, the office received back only 2 of the Vietnamese and 309 of the  Spanish registration applications. While the officials did not speculate as  to the reasons for the low usage of the translated forms, they noted that  since they are required to provide the forms in both languages they would  continue doing so. CBO representatives in two jurisdictions also told us  that they did not believe that the bilingual voting assistance provided by  the election offices was always useful. For example, a CBO representative  in Jackson County, S. Dak., noted that bilingual voting assistance was not  needed because about 95 percent of people in the covered language group  can read and understand English. This opinion was also similar to that of a  group of senior citizen Filipino voters we met with through a CBO in Los  Angeles County, Calif. These voters had mixed views on the usefulness of  the bilingual voting assistance they received. Some of these voters  indicated that the quality of the translated ballots was poor; therefore, they  instead voted using the English version of the ballots. However, these  voters also noted that Filipinos generally know how to read and speak  English; thus, the assistance was not necessary. Yet, these voters also  wanted the same benefits (i.e., translated election materials) provided to  them that other language minority groups received under Section 203.
Election officials and CBO representatives in some jurisdictions stated  that modifications could be made that would improve the usefulness of the  bilingual assistance currently provided to language minority voters. For  example, election officials in four jurisdictions and CBO representatives in  nine jurisdictions believed that the usefulness of bilingual voting  assistance provided by the election office could be improved through  additional community outreach and education efforts. Election officials in  five jurisdictions and CBO representatives in six jurisdictions noted that  improvements in the translation of bilingual voting materials would  improve their usefulness to language minority voters. Finally, election  officials in three jurisdictions and CBO representatives in seven  jurisdictions believed that improvements in the recruiting and training of  bilingual poll workers would improve the usefulness of bilingual voting  assistance. (See table 8 for a list of specific suggestions from election  officials and CBO representatives for improving the usefulness of bilingual  voting assistance.)
section_title: Some Election Officials and Community-Based Organization Representatives Attempted to Measure Aspects of Bilingual Assistance
paragraphs: None of the jurisdictions we included in our study had formally evaluated  the effectiveness of their bilingual voting assistance programs, although  most had used some means of gathering information about the assistance  provided. Election officials in two jurisdictions told us that formal  evaluations of their bilingual voting assistance programs were  unnecessary, since even if they discovered that voters had not used the  assistance or did not find it useful, the jurisdictions were still required to  provide it. Further, officials in one of these jurisdictions said it is  inappropriate for the jurisdiction to conduct such a study because of the  risk of perceived political motivations to do away with bilingual voting  assistance, as well as the potential for legal action if the evaluation results  were used to try to justify not providing bilingual voting assistance.
Election officials in 12 of the 14 jurisdictions reported they used various  informal means to get information about the effectiveness of certain  aspects of their bilingual voting assistance programs. For example,  election officials in six jurisdictions told us they used feedback from  voters, community groups, advisory committees, phone calls to a language  telephone hotline, and other public contacts to determine if the bilingual  assistance was useful and whether any modifications were needed.  Election officials in one jurisdiction said their CBO partners were their  “eyes and ears”—providing significant input if the bilingual voting  assistance they provided was not effective or needed improvement. These  officials commented that they believed obtaining feedback from CBOs was  the best way to know how they were doing, and told us that DOJ had  acknowledged that using CBOs for feedback is a good idea. Election  officials in another jurisdiction reported that they reviewed Election Day  call-center logs to determine whether voters or others had reported any  problems related to bilingual voting assistance, and that if any problems  were identified the jurisdiction worked to address them. Election officials  in four jurisdictions reported they had conducted post-election surveys of  or obtained comments from poll workers, either to determine the number  of voters who had used bilingual assistance at the polls on Election Day or  to obtain feedback about election judges’ and poll workers’ experiences  concerning the assistance provided. Finally, election officials in two  jurisdictions noted that they reviewed changes in the numbers of language  minority voters voting or requesting non-English ballots to gauge the  effectiveness of their efforts.
Representatives from CBOs in three jurisdictions reported that their  organizations had conducted some type of evaluation of the bilingual  assistance provided by their election jurisdiction in the November 2006  general election or had collected other information about the bilingual  voting assistance provided in their jurisdictions. For example,  representatives of a CBO in one jurisdiction told us they had conducted  exit polling with all voters, not just language minority voters, in the  November 2006 general election. Leaders from CBOs in another  jurisdiction reported conducting focus groups with county leaders, voters,  and callers to a phone bank regarding the usefulness of the bilingual  voting assistance provided in their jurisdiction. In addition,  representatives of a CBO that was involved in two jurisdictions noted that  their organization collected data on Election Day regarding the presence  and activity of bilingual poll workers and the display of translated voting  materials in polling places. Representatives with one CBO told us their  method of evaluation relied on informal feedback from community  members.
section_title: Conducting Formal Evaluations of the Usefulness and Effect of Bilingual Voting Assistance Is Difficult
paragraphs: While formal program evaluation tools have proven to be successful  means for federal agencies to improve program effectiveness,  accountability, and service delivery, election offices face many difficult  issues in evaluating the effectiveness, or outcomes, of the bilingual voting  assistance they provide. Among these, three key issues are (1) identifying  the objectives of the bilingual voting assistance program and criteria for  achieving these objectives, (2) determining how to measure these criteria  once they have been identified, and (3) isolating the effects of the bilingual  assistance from other influences on language minority voters when they  vote. (See app. V for a discussion of additional challenges to evaluating the  usefulness of bilingual voting assistance.)
Identifying the objectives and criteria: The identification of appropriate  objectives and criteria for achieving them is basic to any evaluation of  effectiveness, as an effective program must move toward the  achievement of an identified purpose. Examples of objectives for  bilingual assistance could be (1) increased language minority voter  turnout, (2) increased independence demonstrated by language  minority voters when voting, and (3) language minority voters who are  better informed when casting their ballots.
Determining how the objectives and criteria will be measured: Once  objectives and criteria have been established, it is then necessary to  determine how they will be measured. For a number of reasons,  measuring the effectiveness of bilingual voting assistance is difficult.  For example, to measure the effectiveness of bilingual voting  assistance on language minority voter turnout, if a jurisdiction keeps  records on which voters have indicated needing bilingual assistance,  poll books can be checked to see whether these voters have voted and  the numbers of such voters can be tracked across elections. However,  officials in one jurisdiction told us that state law prohibited them from  indicating either a person’s race or their primary language in their voter  registration records. Additionally, a jurisdiction could track the number  of ballots printed in a covered language that had been used by voters.  However, the number of ballots would not be a useful measure if both  English as well as the covered language are printed on the same ballot.  Measuring other potential indicators could be even more difficult. For  example, one objective of bilingual voting assistance could be to enable  language minority voters to cast their ballots independently—for  example, without the need for someone to accompany them into the  polling booth to provide language assistance. However, without  information on the number and percentage of voters who needed  assistance to cast their ballot prior to the implementation of bilingual  voting assistance, jurisdictions could not measure the effect of the  assistance on this indicator accurately.
Isolating the effects from other influences: Isolating the effects of  bilingual assistance on voter behavior would be extremely difficult  because a number of factors influence voter behavior—such as age,  party affiliation, or social organizations to which voters belong. For  example, turnout among Hispanic voters could increase in the first  election following the implementation of bilingual assistance. This  same election could feature one or more Hispanic candidates on the  ballot or one of the candidates could have taken a position deemed as  “anti-immigrant.” It could be difficult to determine the contribution of  each of these factors to the increased Hispanic voter turnout.
The two general approaches that are often used to help isolate the  effects, or impact, of a program would be difficult to use in evaluating  bilingual voting assistance. The first approach involves having baseline  data—data from the period before a program is implemented—along  with data collected from the period after a program is implemented and  comparing the two periods to determine whether there are differences  in the indicators being measured. However, this approach could be  very difficult, if not impossible, to use because jurisdictions might not  have collected the relevant data from previous elections. Also, as  mentioned earlier, unless there is some ability to determine the  contribution of other factors that might influence voter behavior, it  could be difficult to determine the specific effect bilingual assistance  has had.
The second approach is to have a comparison or control group and  involves collecting data from a separate group of individuals who do  not participate in the program but have characteristics similar to those  who do participate in the program to determine whether there are any  differences between these groups on the indicators being measured.  With bilingual voting assistance, this would mean collecting data on  groups of language minority voters who do not receive any bilingual  assistance, and comparing the results to data collected from language  minority voters who received the assistance. However, it would be very  difficult, if not impossible, to keep a control group of language minority  voters from hearing or seeing pre-election bilingual assistance provided  through the media. Further, unless conducted in a simulated way, such  as in a mock election, a jurisdiction covered under Section 203 seeking  to use such a methodology with respect to language minority voters  would appear to face the additional challenge of meeting the Section  203 requirements as well as complying with other applicable federal  and state voting rights protections.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Most election officials we met with supported providing bilingual voting  assistance and took actions to implement this assistance in their  respective jurisdictions; however, many of them also expressed  uncertainty on how best to assess and meet the needs of language minority  voters. DOJ provides guidance on bilingual assistance under Section 203,  and it is intentionally flexible in nature to allow covered election  jurisdictions to tailor their bilingual voting assistance programs to the  specific needs and resources of their communities. At the same time, this  flexibility has led to uncertainty among election officials as to whether  their bilingual programs are actually meeting requirements or the needs of  language minority voters. Moreover, although we have noted in prior work  that federal agencies have successfully used formal program evaluation  tools to improve federal program effectiveness, accountability, and service  delivery, the methodological difficulties election officials and others would  likely face in trying to formally assess the effectiveness of their bilingual  assistance programs for language minority voters make formal evaluations  of these programs very difficult. As a result, the extent to which bilingual  voting assistance programs are meeting the needs of language minority  voters is unknown.
However, the difficulty in conducting formal evaluations does not mean  that election jurisdictions would not benefit from additional feedback or  information about their own or other jurisdictions’ bilingual voting  assistance programs. The EAC’s recent efforts to develop and provide  guidance to election jurisdictions regarding the translation of election  terminology and recruiting bilingual poll workers address two of the  challenges we identified in this report. Similarly, the EAC’s planned  development of additional management guidelines for election officials on  how to provide bilingual voting assistance might also help jurisdictions in  providing this type of assistance. However, because the specific content of  these management guidelines has yet to be determined, whether they will  provide election officials with the information they seek is unknown.  Nonetheless, while these guidelines may not provide election officials with  feedback about their specific language assistance programs, making such  information available from a central, easily accessible source could help  jurisdictions address challenges they face in determining how to provide  bilingual voting assistance that will be useful to the language minorities in  their communities. Finally, although it is difficult to evaluate the effect of  bilingual assistance, in the absence of better data on the extent to which  the assistance is both used and helpful to voters with limited-English  proficiency, there is likely to continue to be debate about the merits of  bilingual voting assistance.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the EAC for review and  comment. DOJ did not provide comments on the draft of this report but  did provide technical edits, which we incorporated where appropriate.
The EAC provided written comments on December 21, 2007, which are  presented in appendix VI. The EAC presented additional details on its  efforts to provide election officials and the public with information on  bilingual voting assistance.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Attorney General, the Commissioners of the U.S. Election  Assistance Commission, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at www.gao.gov.  Please contact William Jenkins at 202-512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov if  you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This review examined the provision of bilingual voting assistance by  selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.  Specifically, our objectives were to provide information on:  the ways that selected jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the  Voting Rights Act have provided bilingual voting assistance as of the  November 2006 general election, and the challenges they reportedly  faced in providing such assistance; and  the perceived usefulness of this bilingual voting assistance, and the  extent to which the selected jurisdictions evaluated the usefulness of  such assistance to language minority voters.
For both objectives, we conducted site visits or obtained information  electronically from 14 selected jurisdictions covered by Section 203.  However, before opting for this approach, we considered other options:  (1) a survey of all 296 covered Section 203 jurisdictions along with a  probability sample of all local government jurisdictions, including cities,  towns, school districts and relevant special districts, contained within  these covered jurisdictions that conduct their own local elections; and     (2) a survey of only the 296 jurisdictions listed in the Federal Register, an  option similar to the methodology we used in our 1997 report.
We chose to focus on the efforts of selected jurisdictions and not to survey  all jurisdictions for several reasons. First, while we had a list of the 296  jurisdictions covered by Section 203, we were unable to locate an  inventory of the complete population of the sub-jurisdictions contained  within these jurisdictions that conducted their own elections from either  the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Census Bureau. The Chief of the  Census Bureau office that prepares the determinations for Section 203 of  the Voting Rights Act told us that it might be possible to develop an  inventory of all sub-jurisdictions contained within the 296 covered  jurisdictions through a complicated merge of Census’ Topologically  Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) system data  files with its Census of Local Government data files. However, she said the  Census of Local Government data do not indicate whether local  governments hold elections or, if they do, who administers the elections.  Therefore, to identify sub-jurisdictions that conduct their own elections  and contacts within these entities, we would have needed to either  canvass election officials in all 296 counties or other covered areas, as well  as state elections officers, or construct a population of all sub-jurisdictions  from Census Bureau data and then select a probability sample of sub- jurisdictions to survey and develop our own contact information. We  believed this approach would have been very difficult, costly, and time  consuming. In addition, we learned that prior to testimony given at the  summer 2006 hearings for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, a  team of researchers at the University of Arizona had already surveyed all  296 jurisdictions listed in the Federal Register, in addition to hundreds of  other jurisdictions, about similar issues. We were reluctant to resurvey  jurisdictions about related matters so soon thereafter.
For our chosen methodology, we selected a sample of 14 covered  jurisdictions in 12 states. We selected these jurisdictions because they  reflected a variety of characteristics, such as size (i.e., voting age  population), geographic diversity, varying language minority groups and  their size relative to the voting age population, early voting provisions, and  the longevity of each jurisdiction’s coverage under the Section 203  bilingual voting provisions; and, we wanted a diverse group of sites to  allow us to report on a wide range of jurisdictions’ experiences with  providing bilingual voting assistance. (See table 9 for a listing of the  jurisdictions included in our study and the criteria used to select them.)  Because we selected a nongeneralizable sample of election jurisdictions,  the experiences and views discussed in this report cannot be generalized  to all 296 jurisdictions required to provide bilingual voting assistance  under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act or to the community-based  organizations (CBO) in these jurisdictions.
Generally, we obtained information from the single office responsible for  conducting elections in each of these jurisdictions. However, in two  jurisdictions—Cook County, Ill., and Harris County, Tex.—we met with  officials in two separate offices because each office had separate  responsibilities for statewide and federal elections held in the jurisdiction.  In Cook County, the Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners is  responsible for administering these elections in the portion of Cook  County that is Chicago, and the Cook County Clerk is responsible for  administering elections in the remainder of Cook County. In Harris  County, the tax assessor/collector is responsible for voter registration, and  the County Clerk is responsible for the remainder of election activities.  Due to numerous scheduling conflicts, we were unable to arrange a visit to  Sandoval County, N. Mex.; however, we did obtain written responses to  our questions from an election official in Sandoval County via electronic  means. In one jurisdiction—Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska—we  interviewed not only a local government official who has responsibility for  local elections but also state officials, as the state has responsibility for  overseeing federal and statewide elections in Alaska jurisdictions. Also,  we selected 2 sub-jurisdictions among the 14 covered jurisdictions to learn  about the bilingual voting assistance these localities provided in local  elections. We identified these sub-jurisdictions by asking election officials  about what localities within their jurisdictions conducted their own local  elections. These localities were: Los Angeles City, Calif., and Kadoka City,  S. Dak.
In addition to obtaining information from election officials, we also  selected 38 CBOs that represent relevant language minority communities  in 11 of the 14 jurisdictions. We selected the CBOs through inquiries with  election officials, contacts with national level advocacy groups to learn of  local counterparts, contacts with the CBOs themselves to learn of  additional groups in their communities, and Internet searches. In our  discussions with representatives with a few CBOs, we were able also to  speak with a few language minority voters (in one case with the help of an  interpreter) who said they had used the bilingual assistance provided by  their jurisdiction.
We either conducted on-site interviews with or obtained information  electronically from election officials and CBO representatives regarding  the bilingual voting assistance provided in the November 2006 general  election and any subsequent elections through June 2007. Using a semi- structured interview guide, we obtained information from the election  offices about    office staff assigned to provide bilingual assistance;  the office’s strategy for identifying needs and providing bilingual  assistance;  the type(s) and availability of bilingual assistance provided at different  stages of the election process for the November 2006 general election  and any subsequent elections, including voter education efforts, voter  registration, early voting and absentee voting, recruiting and training  poll workers, ballot design and voting systems, Election Day activities,  and the usefulness of this assistance to voters; and    supporting documentation as evidence of the types of bilingual voting  assistance (e.g., sample ballots, pamphlets, voter education materials,  etc.) provided to language minority voters in these jurisdictions.
Using a semi-structured interview guide, we also obtained information  from CBO representatives about their roles in providing bilingual voting  assistance in the November 2006 general election and any subsequent  elections; their views about the bilingual assistance provided by the  election office in these elections; and the usefulness of this assistance.
We also interviewed officials and obtained documents from other relevant  parties. Interviews and documents were obtained from the DOJ Civil  Rights Division, which is responsible for providing program guidance and  enforcing compliance with the requirements under Section 203 of the  Voting Rights Act. We also interviewed officials from the EAC, which was  established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to, among other things,  act as a clearinghouse and resource for information and review of  procedures with respect to the administration of federal elections.  Additionally, we interviewed the Chief of the Census Bureau office that  prepares the determinations for Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We  reviewed pertinent federal laws, regulations, and agency guidance  pertaining to the bilingual voting provisions. We also reviewed extensive  prior GAO work, other national studies, reports, and news articles;  attended several national conferences; and interviewed the secretary of  state for one state with jurisdictions covered by Section 203 to gain further  insight regarding these issues. We conducted this performance audit from  October 2006 to January 2008 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and  perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Section 203 Coverage Criteria Regarding Language Minority Groups and Covered Jurisdictions
paragraphs: Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides specific criteria for  determining which states and jurisdictions are covered by the Section 203  language minority provisions. The Director of the Census Bureau has  responsibility for making the official determinations regarding which  political subdivisions are covered under section 203. To make its  determinations, the Census Bureau reevaluates the jurisdictions covered  by Section 203 every 10 years using new Census data as they become  available.  The number of covered jurisdictions has risen from 227 in 1975,  the first year jurisdictions were required to comply with Section 203, to  296 jurisdictions in 30 states in 2002, the year of the most recent  determination. The Census Bureau uses classifications—states, counties,  minor civil divisions, or tribal areas—and variables such as voter age,  language proficiency, and citizenship as self-reported on Census forms to  determine the jurisdictions to be covered under Section 203. The following  material in figure 1 describes the coverage criteria.
The Director of the Census Bureau applied these criteria to the data  obtained from the 2000 census (the most recent census) to determine  which jurisdictions are covered under Section 203. The Director of the  Census Bureau identifies the relevant language groups for the covered  jurisdictions. Because the Census Bureau data used to determine the  covered language are self-reported, the specific language an individual  speaks is not always identified and thus jurisdictions may not know the  specific language for which they are to provide assistance. For example,  an individual may identify their language as “Indian language,” but this  does not clarify for the jurisdiction what specific Indian language  assistance it is to provide. Also, some Section 203 covered jurisdictions  have more than one language group for which they are required to provide  voting assistance. (See table 10 for the list of jurisdictions covered under  Section 203 and the respective language groups, as of July 2002.)
section_title: Appendix III: DOJ Actions under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 1980-2007
section_title: Appendix IV: Examples of Bilingual Voting Written Assistance Materials
paragraphs: The following are excerpted examples of bilingual voting materials  provided by election officials in covered jurisdictions.
section_title: Appendix V: Additional Challenges to Evaluating the Usefulness of Bilingual Voting Assistance
paragraphs: In addition to the three key issues discussed earlier in this report, other  difficult issues also face election offices in evaluating the bilingual voting  assistance they provide, including: (1) how to appropriately sample, or  select, polling places and language minority voters to include in an  evaluation; (2) the receptivity of language minority voters to participation  in a study; (3) having data collectors who can speak fluently the specific  language, and possibly dialect, of language minority voters in a  jurisdiction; (4) having the necessary staff and technical expertise to  conduct a methodologically sound evaluation; and (5) the likely expense  of an evaluation.
Determining how to sample: When determining how to gather data  from the language minority voting population, a jurisdiction must  decide whether to conduct a census (collect data from everyone) or to  select a sample of the population from whom to get information.  Depending on various factors, including the numbers of precincts and  the numbers of voters in the jurisdiction, collecting information from  all members of a given population, such as all language minority voters  could be very costly, as well as logistically difficult to do in evaluating  the usefulness of bilingual voting assistance. Therefore, selecting a  probability or nonprobability sample can be a more cost-effective  alternative. For example, if a jurisdiction was unable to collect data  from all voters on Election Day, it could select a probability sample of  voters in an exit poll. To be able to generalize the results to all language  minority voters, such an exit poll would need to be based on a  probability sample of precincts in the jurisdiction and voters voting  within each selected precinct throughout Election Day. Alternatively,  jurisdictions could collect information from language minority voters  through methods such as comment cards soliciting feedback about  bilingual voting placed on tables in precincts on Election Day, or they  could log individuals’ calls to a telephone hotline to report voting  problems. While useful information could be obtained, there would be  no guarantee that the voters who completed the cards or called the  hotline were statistically representative of all voters who used the  bilingual voting assistance. As a result, a jurisdiction would need to be  cautious about interpreting the information obtained from this source  because the information could be biased.
Identifying willing participants: It is necessary to have language  minority voters who are receptive to participation in an evaluation. In  some locations, language minority voters may be sensitive about their  English language skills, and consequently, there may be some  embarrassment about needing to use bilingual voting assistance or  about the extent to which the assistance is helpful. In these instances,  it may be difficult to get language minority voters to cooperate, or, if  they do cooperate, difficult to obtain accurate information about their  experiences in using the assistance provided.
Obtaining data collectors with language skills: Any evaluation of  bilingual voting assistance must use individuals trained in data  collection methods. These individuals would also need to speak  fluently the specific language, and possibly dialect, spoken by language  minority voters in a jurisdiction in order to effectively communicate  with language minority voters asked to participate in a study.
Having the necessary staff: Election offices face the difficult issues of  having the necessary staff and technical expertise to conduct  methodologically sound evaluations in evaluating the effectiveness of  the bilingual voting assistance provided. Since the purpose of election  offices is to conduct elections, it is unlikely that election offices will  have staff available who either have the time or professional expertise  to conduct an evaluation. Therefore, election offices would likely need  to seek outside professional assistance, such as through a contract  with a consultant, to do so.
Having sufficient resources: Efforts to evaluate program effectiveness  can be expensive. Unless an election office received special funding to  evaluate its bilingual assistance program, it would likely have to rely on  existing operating budgets that may already be limited. Officials in five  jurisdictions said they had no money or staff to evaluate the assistance  they provided. The election administrator in one jurisdiction stated that  their top funding priorities were for operational needs, not for  conducting such a study.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Dawn E. Hoff, Assistant Director; David  Alexander, Assistant Director; Claudia K. Becker; Natalie Chaney;  Geoffrey Hamilton; Linda Miller; Hugh C. Paquette; Deena D. Richart; and  Clarence Tull, Sr., made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Elections: Further Testing Could Provide Increased but Not Absolute  Assurance That Voting Systems Did Not Cause Undervotes in Florida’s  13th Congressional District. GAO-08-97T. Washington, D.C.: October 2,  2007.
Elections: Status of GAO’s Review of Voting Equipment Used in  Florida’s 13th Congressional District. GAO-07-1167T. Washington, D.C.:  August 3, 2007.
Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in Electronic  Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas Citizens.   GAO-07-774. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic  Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2007.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic  Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-576T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2007.
Elections: DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee Voters,  but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-1134T. Washington, D.C.: September 28,  2006.
Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the  November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6,  2006.
Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens  Increased for 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain.   GAO-06-521. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.
Election Reform: Nine States’ Experiences Implementing Federal  Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists.  GAO-06-247. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2006.
Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter  Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997.  Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.
Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of  Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be  Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.
Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections  Officials Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478.  Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Department of Justice’s Activities to Address Past Election-Related  Voting Irregularities. GAO-04-1041R. Washington, D.C.: September 14,  2004.
Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents  Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90.  Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges across the Nation.  GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Statistical Analysis of Factors That Affected Uncounted Votes  in the 2000 Presidential Election. GAO-02-122. Washington, D.C.: October  15, 2001.
Elections: Status and Use of Federal Voting Equipment Standards. GAO- 02-52. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting  Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should  Be Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Comparison of Voting Age Population to Registered Voters in the 40  Largest U.S. Counties. GAO-01-560R. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election  Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs.   GAO/GGD-97-81. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1997.
Puerto Rico: Confusion over Applicability of the Electoral Law to  Referendum Process. HRD-93-84. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 1993.
Voting: Some Procedural Changes and Informational Activities Could  Increase Turnout. PEMD-91-1. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 1990.
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Costs of and Use during the November 1984  General Election. GGD-86-134BR. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 1986.
Justice Can Further Improve Its Monitoring of Changes in State/Local  Voting Laws. GGD-84-9. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 1983.