Protections Against Employment Discrimination for Service Members
and Veterans
Jointly Authored By:
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
U.S. Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS)
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (CRT)
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Service members and veterans have made great sacrifices to guarantee the freedoms and
liberties that all Americans enjoy. And service members and veterans themselves are also
guaranteed rights, such as the right to be free from discrimination in civilian employment. This
document helps explain where to get help if you are a service member or veteran and you feel
that you have been discriminated against in employment because of your military status,
veteran status, or another protected basis.
Veterans and Service Members are Protected Against Employment Discrimination
Two federal laws prohibit discrimination in employment based on your status as a service
member or veteran:
•

•

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
prohibits civilian employers from discriminating against you based on your present, past,
and future military service. It also entitles service members, such as National Guard
members and reservists, who leave their civilian employment to perform covered
military service to prompt reemployment with their pre-service employer following the
completion of their duty. This means that service members who meet the eligibility
criteria for reinstatement must be promptly reemployed with their pre-service
employers with the seniority, status, and rate of pay that they would have obtained with
reasonable certainty had they remained continuously employed.
The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA) prohibits
federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment against
protected veterans and requires employers take affirmative action to recruit, hire,
promote, and retain these individuals. This protection against discrimination extends
not only to spouses, but also to other individuals that the contractor knows have a
relationship or association with a protected veteran.

Additional federal laws prohibit employment discrimination against applicants and employees
for other reasons that veterans and service members may face, including:
•

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 makes it illegal for employers to
discriminate against qualified job applicants and employees based on their physical or
mental disabilities, including failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a
1

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

qualified employee or applicant. Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 applies
the same standards to federal agency employers.
Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits federal contractors and
subcontractors from discriminating in employment against individuals with disabilities,
including failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified employee or
applicant. It also requires employers to take affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote,
and retain these individuals.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
national origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), and
religion.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires that men and women in the same workplace be
given equal pay for equal work.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects people who are 40 or older
from discrimination because of age.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prohibits discrimination based
on genetic information (which includes family medical history).
The Immigration and Nationality Act’s Anti-Discrimination Provision prohibits
discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status, and national origin (for certain
employers not covered under Title VII).
Executive Order 11246 prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from
discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or national origin and requires affirmative action to promote equal
opportunity. Contractors also are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or
employees because they inquire about, discuss, or disclose their compensation or that
of others, subject to certain limitations.

Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against you, for example threatening to withhold
a promotion or firing you, for asserting your rights under these laws or otherwise participating
in protected activity. Examples of protected activity include filing a complaint or participating
in an investigation.
Do You Qualify for USERRA’s Reemployment Rights?
To qualify for USERRA’s reemployment rights, you must be a service member and generally
meet the following eligibility criteria:
•
•
•
•

You must have left a civilian job to perform covered service;
You must have given notice to the employer that you were leaving to perform military
service (orally or in writing);
You have had five years or less of cumulative service with the covered employer
(although there are a number of exceptions to this rule);
You must not have a disqualifying discharge (dishonorable, other than honorable, or bad
conduct); and
2

•

You must have reported back to work within the appropriate time constraints (which
are dependent on the time spent on covered military service).

More information on who qualifies for USERRA protections can be found on the VETS and CRT
webpages.
How Do You Assert Your Rights Under USERRA?
You can seek assistance for enforcing your rights under USERRA with the federal government,
or by filing a lawsuit directly in court with your own lawyer.
VETS investigates and resolves complaints of USERRA violations. For assistance in filing a
complaint, or for other information on USERRA, visit the VETS website. Use an interactive
online USERRA Advisor.
If you file a complaint with VETS and the agency is unable to resolve the matter to your
satisfaction, you may request that your case be referred to the Department of Justice or the
Office of Special Counsel, as applicable, for representation.
CRT has authority to bring lawsuits against private, state, and local government employers for
violations of USERRA but only upon receiving complaint referrals from VETS. If CRT lawyers are
reasonably satisfied that the service member is entitled to relief after receiving a referral, CRT
may commence an action in federal court.
Please note that CRT may not be able to bring a lawsuit in every case that is referred to it but
reviews every referral carefully. For more information, please see the Department of Justice’s
Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative webpage.
Do You Qualify as a “Protected Veteran” Under VEVRAA?
Under VEVRAA, if you served active duty in the U.S. military and were discharged or released
for reasons other than dishonorable you may be a protected veteran in one or more of the
following categories:
• Disabled veterans
• Recently separated veterans
• Active duty wartime or campaign badge veterans
• Armed Forces service medal veterans
More information on VEVRAA protections is located on the OFCCP VEVRAA website. OFCCP’s
Infographic includes information on who qualifies as a protected veteran.

3

How do You Assert Your Rights Under VEVRAA?
You can file a complaint with OFCCP if you believe your rights as a worker have been violated or
if you believe a federal contractor has been discriminatory in its practices. OFCCP is committed
to workers’ rights and will investigate complaints filed against federal contractors.
Learn more about filing a complaint with OFCCP. You can also find additional information on
protected veterans’ rights on the DOL site and on worker.gov.
Which Agency Should You Contact for Assistance with Employment Discrimination on Other
Bases?
Contact the EEOC if you believe you have been discriminated against by an employer, labor
union, or employment agency as an employee or applicant because of your race, color, national
origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), religion, age (over 40
years old), disability, genetic information, or in retaliation for opposing a prohibited practice or
participating in an equal employment opportunity matter.
Contact OFCCP if you believe that you have been discriminated against by an employer doing
business with the Federal Government based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, national origin, or disability. You can also contact OFCCP if you asked about or
discussed your pay or that of a co-worker and you were fired, demoted, or disciplined because
of it.
Contact CRT’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section if you believe that you have been
discriminated against by an employer because of your citizenship, immigration status, or
national origin.
Do You File a Charge or Complaint Alleging Discrimination with EEOC or OFCCP?
Contact EEOC to file a charge if you believe you have been discriminated against, harassed, or
subjected to retaliation by an employer. Most of the laws enforced by EEOC require you to file
a charge before you can file a discrimination lawsuit. In addition, an individual, organization, or
agency may file a charge on your behalf in order to protect your identity. EEOC’s website
provides more information on filing a charge, including links to its online public portal and
important time limits. Federal employees and job applicants have similar protections but
follow a different complaint process.
Contact OFCCP to file a complaint if you believe your rights as a worker have been violated or if
you believe a federal contractor has been discriminatory in its practices. OFCCP is committed to
workers’ rights and will investigate complaints filed against federal contractors. OFCCP’s
website provides more information on filing a complaint.

4

CRT works with the EEOC and OFCCP to enforce laws such as Title VII, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The EEOC and OFCCP may
refer certain charges of discrimination to CRT for enforcement, including where the employer is
a state or local government entity.
Other CRT-DOL-EEOC Resources for Protecting the Rights of Veterans and Service Members
CRT’s Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative website has more information about other rights
and protections, including those related to finance and housing, voting, consumer protection,
disability status, and more. You can also contact CRT to submit a report if you believe your civil
rights, or someone else’s, have been violated.
OFCCP’s website contains information about programs that provide services and support to
veterans and their families addressing employment, education, housing, medical, and other
topics. VEVRAA also requires federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action
to recruit, hire, promote, and retain veterans. Learn more about VEVRAA compliance
assistance.
VETS’s website includes additional resources for veterans and military spouses, including offbase transition training, information on apprenticeship and the civilian transition, and veteran
unemployment rate information. The Department of Labor also provides more information on
its veterans employment website.
EEOC’s website provides more information for veterans with disabilities, including a resource
document that helps explain your workplace rights and responsibilities. Find additional
information on the Americans with Disabilities Act and mental health conditions.

5


Conozca
su derecho
al voto
Su guía a las leyes
federales sobre el
derecho al voto

Departamento de Justicia de los EE. UU.

División de Derechos Civiles

Contenido de esta guía
Información básica sobre
la votación 				1
Cómo proteger su derecho
al voto				1
Inscripción de votantes

3

Votación desde el extranjero

7

Votantes con un dominio
limitado del inglés

9

Votantes con discapacidades

10

Cómo denunciar una
vulneración

12

Recursos adicionales

13

Información básica sobre
la votación
¿Quiénes gestionan las elecciones
en mi estado?
Funcionarios electorales estatales y locales.
Ellos gestionan las elecciones federales,
estatales y locales, incluyendo las del Congreso
y para la presidencia.
Si usted desea saber cómo puede votar en su
estado, debe comunicarse con esos funcionarios
porque las normas varían de estado a estado. Para
más información sobre las normas en su estado
y para los datos de contacto de los funcionarios
electorales, vaya a vote.gov en español.

Cómo proteger su
derecho al voto
¿Las leyes federales protegen mi
derecho al voto?
Sí. La División de Derechos Civiles del
Departamento de Justicia de los EE. UU. hace
1

cumplir estas leyes. En muchos casos, las
personas cuyos derechos han sido vulnerados
también pueden entablar pleitos privados.

¿Las leyes federales protegen contra
la discriminación en la votación?
Sí. Aquí tiene dos de las leyes federales más
importantes en lo que se refiere a la protección
de votantes contra la discriminación.
La primera ley es la ley de Derecho al Voto
(“VRA”, por sus siglas en inglés). La Sección 2 de
la VRA declara que es ilegal denegar o restringir
el derecho al voto por motivos de la raza o el color
de piel de un ciudadano. También prohíbe que se
discrimine contra ciudadanos que pertenecen
a un grupo lingüístico minoritario, lo cual, bajo
la definición en la VRA, se extiende a personas
nativas americanas, asiáticas americanas, nativas
de Alaska o de herencia hispana.
Conforme con la Sección 2, los gobiernos
estatales y locales no pueden emplear prácticas
o normas electorales que sean intencionalmente
discriminatorias. Tampoco pueden emplear
prácticas o normas que resulten en que
ciudadanos de cierta raza o grupo lingüístico
minoritario tengan una oportunidad menor
que la de otras personas a votar y elegir a los
funcionarios públicos que quieran.
La segunda ley es la ley para Estadounidenses
con Discapacidades. El Título II de tal
ley requiere que los gobiernos estatales
y locales garanticen que las personas
con discapacidades tengan igualdad de
oportunidades de votar plenamente. Al igual
que la Sección 2 de la VRA, esta ley aplica a
todos los aspectos de la votación. Esto incluye
2

la inscripción para votar, el acceso a centros
de votación y la emisión del voto, tanto en el
día de las elecciones como durante la votación
temprana. Para más información, vaya a
ADA.gov (solo en inglés).

¿Las leyes federales protegen
contra la intimidación de votantes?
Sí. Existen leyes federales civiles y penales que
prohíben que se intimide, amenace o coaccione a
alguien que está votando o que está intentando
votar, así como leyes federales que prohíben que
se intimide, amenace o coaccione a personas que
están instando o ayudando a otros a votar.
Las leyes civiles incluyen la ley de Derechos
Civiles de 1957 y la ley de Derecho al Voto. Las
leyes penales aparecen en varios títulos del
Código de los EE. UU.

Inscripción de votantes
¿Dónde puedo inscribirme
para votar?
La ley Nacional de Inscripción de Votantes
(“NVRA”, por sus siglas en inglés) requiere que
la mayoría de los estados (todos menos Idaho,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Wisconsin y Wyoming) le permitan inscribirse
para votar por medio de correo ordinario.
3

También requiere que esos mismos 44 estados
le permitan inscribirse para votar desde varias
oficinas gubernamentales. Algunos ejemplos
son las oficinas que proporcionan licencias
de conducir, asistencia pública o servicios
para personas discapacitadas, y las oficinas
de reclutamiento de las Fuerzas Armadas. Es
posible que su estado en particular ofrezca
otras maneras de inscribirse, tales como en
oficinas electorales, eventos de inscripción de
votantes, centros de votación, o bien por correo
ordinario o en línea.
Si usted es elegible para inscribirse, los
estados deberán permitirle que vote en
elecciones federales, siempre y cuando su
solicitud de inscripción sea fechada o recibida
por la oficina correcta al menos 30 días antes
de tales elecciones. En algunos estados, la
fecha límite es todavía más próxima a las
elecciones, y algunos otros estados permiten la
inscripción en el día de las elecciones.
Usted debe comprobar en el sitio web electoral
de su estado los datos específicos sobre los
requisitos y las fechas límite. Puede localizar
ese sitio web a través de vote.gov en español.

¿Cuándo me pueden quitar de la
lista de inscripción de votantes?
En virtud de la Sección 8 de la ley Nacional
de Inscripción de Votantes, los funcionarios
pueden quitarle de la lista de inscripción de
votantes para elecciones federales si usted lo
pide o si se muere.
También le pueden quitar de la lista si se muda
a otro lugar, siempre y cuando los funcionarios
sigan las normas de la NVRA en lo que se refiere
4

a la notificación y programación. No le pueden
quitar de la lista de inscripción simplemente
por no votar en unas elecciones. Pero sí le
pueden quitar si no contesta a una notificación
solicitando que confirme si se ha mudado y
posteriormente usted no vota dentro de los
próximos dos ciclos electorales federales.
Muchos estados también le quitarán de la
lista si se le condena por ciertos delitos o si es
declarado/a mentalmente incapacitado/a por
un tribunal.

¿Puedo votar si me he mudado y
olvidé actualizar mi dirección de
inscripción de votante?
Depende. Imagínese que se acaba de mudar
a una zona que pertenece al mismo centro de
votación (por ejemplo, solo se mudó a otra casa
en el mismo barrio). En tal caso la ley Nacional
de Inscripción de Votantes le permitiría votar
en ese centro de votación. No obstante, deberá
actualizar la dirección que los funcionarios
electorales tienen registrada (algo que puede
hacer en el centro de votación a la hora de ir
a votar) para que sea correcta para futuras
elecciones.
Imagínese que se ha mudado a una dirección
que pertenece a otro centro de votación,
pero todavía vive dentro de la jurisdicción del
mismo registrador (por ejemplo, en otro lugar
de la misma ciudad) y en el mismo distrito
del Congreso. En tal caso, podrá votar en
su antiguo centro de votación. Y en algunos
estados, es posible que se le permita votar
en su nuevo centro de votación o en un lugar
central, como en la oficina del registrador,
en vez de en su antiguo centro de votación.
5

Nuevamente, deberá actualizar la dirección que
los funcionarios electorales tienen registrada
(algo que puede hacer en el centro de votación
a la hora de ir a votar) para que sea correcta
para futuras elecciones.
Imagínese que no se ha mudado pero los
registros de inscripción indican, erróneamente,
que sí se ha mudado. Entonces usted tiene
derecho a votar en su centro de votación una
vez que haya afirmado que sigue viviendo donde
estaba inscrito/a.
Usted debe comprobar en el sitio web electoral
de su estado la información sobre su centro de
votación correcto. Puede localizar ese sitio web
a través de vote.gov en español.
Por último, las leyes federales protegen su
derecho a votar en las elecciones presidenciales
si se mudó poco antes del día de las elecciones
o si no se encuentra en su estado en el día de las
elecciones. Este derecho está protegido por la
Sección 202 de la ley de Derecho al Voto.

¿Qué pasa si me inscribí para votar
pero mi nombre no figura en el libro
de inscripción de votantes?
En la mayoría de los estados, usted puede
conseguir una “papeleta provisional” para
votar en las elecciones federales después
de declarar que usted está inscrito/a y es
elegible. La Sección 302 de la ley Ayudemos
a Estados Unidos a Votar establece algunas
normas sobre sobre este tema. También
es posible que se le ofrezca una papeleta
provisional si un funcionario electoral declara
que usted no es elegible para votar.

6

Las leyes estatales pueden ofrecer otros motivos
para darle una papeleta provisional, por ejemplo,
si usted no trae consigo el carnet de identidad
requerido por el estado cuando va a votar (en un
estado que requiere que muestre un carnet de
identidad para poder votar) o si ya se le había
enviado una papeleta para votar en ausencia.
Para votar con una papeleta provisional, usted
debe firmar una declaración escrita. Su papeleta
rellenada se mantendrá por separado de las
papeletas normales hasta que un funcionario
electoral determine si se deberá contar o no.
Se le deberá brindar instrucciones por escrito
sobre cómo averiguar si su papeleta fue contada
y, si no fue contada, las razones por las que no
se contó. En virtud de las leyes estatales, es
posible que también tenga que proporcionar
información adicional antes de una fecha
específica para que se cuente su papeleta.

Votación desde el
extranjero
¿Puedo votar si me encuentro fuera
del país en servicio militar activo o
si vivo en el extranjero?
Sí. Si usted sería elegible para votar si viviera
en los EE. UU., la ley de Votación para los
Uniformados y los Ciudadanos en el Extranjero
protege su derecho a inscribirse y votar en
ausencia en las elecciones federales.

7

Esta ley protege a ciudadanos que están
sirviendo en el ejército o que son miembros
de la marina mercante y que están en servicio
activo lejos de su casa, ya sea en el extranjero
o dentro de los EE. UU. También protege a
sus familiares elegibles que están lejos de su
casa a causa de ese servicio activo. Asimismo,
protege el derecho al voto de ciudadanos de los
Estados Unidos que viven en el extranjero.
Para las elecciones federales, usted puede
inscribirse para votar y pedir una papeleta para
votar en ausencia a la misma vez mediante la
Tarjeta Federal Postal de Solicitud. Podrá pedir
que se le envíe su papeleta para votar en ausencia
por correo ordinario o de manera electrónica.
También podrá usar una papeleta federal para
votar en ausencia por candidatos no incluidos
como respaldo si ha solicitado de manera
oportuna, pero todavía no ha recibido, su papeleta
para votar en ausencia.
Para más información, visite el sitio web del
Programa Federal de Asistencia en la Votación
en FVAP.gov (solo en inglés) y el sitio web de la
División de Derechos Civiles en The Uniformed
And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(justice.gov) (solo en inglés).

8

Votantes con un dominio
limitado del inglés
¿Cuáles leyes federales protegen
a los votantes con un dominio
limitado del inglés?
La Sección 208 de la ley de Derecho al Voto
permite a los votantes que tienen dificultades
para leer (por ejemplo, porque su dominio del
inglés es limitado) a conseguir ayuda con el
proceso electoral de una persona que ellos
mismos elijan. Pero esa persona no puede
ser el empleador del votante ni tampoco un
funcionario de su sindicato laboral.
La Sección 4(e) de la VRA prohíbe que los
funcionarios electorales condicionen el derecho
al voto de un ciudadano a la capacidad de tal
ciudadano de leer, escribir o entender inglés.
La ley protege a votantes que completaron al
menos hasta el sexto grado en escuelas que
operan bajo la bandera estadounidense donde las
clases se enseñan en un idioma que no sea inglés.
Por ejemplo, esta ley aplica a ciudadanos que
asistieron a una escuela pública en Puerto Rico y
fueron instruidos en español.
Por otra parte, la Sección 203 de la VRA requiere
que en aquellos lugares donde hay un número
suficiente de votantes de minorías lingüísticas se
ofrezca ayuda y materiales electorales en otros
idiomas. Cada cinco años, la Oficina del Censo
9

de los EE. UU. identifica los lugares donde este
requisito aplica y los idiomas que se deberán usar.
Para una lista actualizada de estos lugares vaya
a Voting Rights Data Tabulations (census.gov)
(solo en inglés).
La Sección 301 de la ley de Ayudemos a Estados
Unidos a Votar requiere que los sistemas
electorales de tales jurisdicciones sean
accesibles en los mismos idiomas.

Votantes con
discapacidades
¿Cuáles leyes federales protegen a
los votantes con discapacidades?
El Título II de la ley para Estadounidenses con
Discapacidades requiere que los gobiernos
locales y estatales aseguren que las personas
con discapacidades tengan igualdad de
oportunidades de votar plenamente.
Esta ley aplica a todos los aspectos de la
votación. Esto incluye la inscripción de votantes,
el acceso a centros de votación y la emisión
del voto, tanto en el día de las elecciones como
durante la votación temprana.

10

La ley de Ayudemos a los Estados Unidos
a Votar tiene normas sobre los centros de
votación durante las elecciones federales.
Cada centro de votación debe tener al menos
un sistema de votación que permita a personas
con discapacidades a emitir su voto de manera
independiente y privada.
La Sección 208 de la ley de Derecho al Voto
permite que votantes con discapacidades
consigan ayuda con el proceso electoral de
una persona que ellos mismos elijan. Pero esa
persona no puede ser el empleador del votante ni
tampoco un funcionario de su sindicato laboral.

11

Cómo denunciar una
vulneración
¿Cómo puedo denunciar una posible
vulneración a las leyes federales de
derecho al voto?
Denuncie posibles vulneraciones a los derechos
civiles a la División de Derechos Civiles.
Usted puede hacerlo:
•

En línea en Comuníquese con la División de
Derechos Civiles | Departamento de Justicia
(justice.gov) o

•

Por teléfono al (800) 253-3931

Denuncie posibles delitos federales, como
preocupaciones relacionadas con amenazas
contra votantes, amenazas contra funcionarios
electorales o fraude electoral al FBI.
Usted puede hacerlo:
•

En línea en FBI - Tips (solo en inglés);
Contactar — FBI o

•

Por teléfono al 800-CALL-FBI

12

Recursos adicionales
¿Dónde puedo encontrar más
información sobre la manera en la
que las leyes federales protegen
mi derecho al voto?
Puede encontrar más información en el sitio
web de la División de Derechos Civiles.
•

El sitio web de la Sección de Votación se
encuentra en SECCIÓN DE VOTACIÓN |
CRT-ESPANOL | Department of Justice.

•

El sitio web de la Sección de Derechos en
Razón de Discapacidad sobre la ley para
Estadounidenses con Discapacidades se
encuentra en ADA.gov (solo en inglés).

Para más información y recursos sobre la
votación vaya a Voting | Department of
Justice (solo en inglés) y vote.gov en español.

13

13

justice.gov/voting


Know Your
Voting Rights
Your Guide to Federal
Voting Rights Laws

Inside this Guide
Voting 101

1

Protecting Your Right to Vote

1

Voter Registration

3

Voting Overseas

7

Voting with Limited
English Proficiency

8

Voting with a Disability

9

Reporting a Violation

10

Additional Resources

11

Voting 101
Who runs elections in my state?
State and local election officials. They run
local, state, and federal elections, including for
Congress and for the Presidency.
If you want to know how you can vote in your
state, you should contact those officials
because the rules are different in different
states.
You can find more information about your
state’s rules and the contact information for
election officials at vote.gov.

Protecting Your Right
to Vote
Does federal law protect my
right to vote?
Yes. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice enforces these laws.
Often, people whose rights have been violated
can also bring private lawsuits.
1

Does federal law protect against
discrimination in voting?
Yes. Here are two of the most important
federal laws for protecting voters against
discrimination.
The first law is the Voting Rights Act, or
“VRA.” Section 2 of the VRA makes it illegal
to deny or restrict voting rights because
of a citizen’s race or color. It also outlaws
discrimination against citizens who are
members of a language minority group, which
the VRA defines as including American Indian,
Asian American, Alaskan Native, or Latino
persons.
Under Section 2, state and local governments
cannot use voting practices or election rules
that are intentionally discriminatory. Nor
can they use practices or rules that result in
citizens who belong to a particular race or
language minority group having less of an
opportunity than everyone else to vote and
elect the public officials they want.
The second law is the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Title II of that law requires
state and local governments to make sure that
people with disabilities have a full and equal
chance to vote. Like Section 2 of the VRA,
this law applies to all aspects of voting. This
includes registering to vote, getting into polling
places, and casting a ballot, both on Election
Day and during early voting. You can find more
information at ada.gov.

2

Do federal laws protect against
voter intimidation?
Yes. There are civil and criminal federal
statutes that make it illegal to intimidate,
threaten or coerce someone for voting or
attempting to vote, as well as federal statutes
that make it illegal to intimidate, threaten or
coerce people who are urging or helping others
to vote.
The civil statutes include the Civil Rights Act
of 1957 and the Voting Rights Act. The criminal
statutes appear in several Titles of the U.S. Code.

Voter Registration
Where can I register to vote?
The National Voter Registration Act requires
most states (all but Idaho, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming) to let you register to vote by using
the mail.
It also requires those same 44 states to let you
register to vote through various government
offices. Some examples are offices that provide
driver licenses, public assistance, or disability
services, and Armed Forces recruitment
offices. Your state may also offer other ways

3

to register, such as at elections offices, voter
registration events, a polling place, through the
mail, or online.
If you’re eligible to register, states must
let you vote in a federal election as long as
your registration application is postmarked
or received by the right office at least 30
days before that election. In some states,
the deadline is even closer to the election;
and some other states permit Election Day
registration.
Please check your state’s elections website for
specific information about the requirements
and deadlines. You can find that website by
going to vote.gov.

When can I be taken off the voter
registration list?
Under Section 8 of the National Voter
Registration Act, officials can take you off the
voter registration list for federal elections if
you ask them to, or if you die.
You can also be taken off the list if you move
away, as long as officials follow the NVRA’s
rules about notice and timing. You cannot
be removed from the registration list solely
because you did not vote in an election. But you
can be taken off if you do not answer a notice
asking you to confirm whether you have moved,
and then you do not vote within the next two
federal election cycles.
Many states will also take you off the list if you
are convicted of certain crimes or judged to be
mentally incapacitated.

4

Can I vote if I moved and forgot
to update my voter registration
address?
It depends. Suppose you moved within an
area covered by the same polling place (for
example, you just moved down the block). Then
the National Voter Registration Act allows you
to vote at that polling place. But you should
update your address with election officials
(which you can do at the polling place when you
vote) so that it is correct for future elections.
Suppose you moved to an address that has a
different polling place, but you still live within
the same registrar’s jurisdiction (for example,
somewhere in the same city) and the same
Congressional district. Then you may vote at
your old polling place. And in some states,
you may also be allowed to vote at your new
polling place or a central location, such as the
registrar’s office, instead of your old polling
place. Again, you should update your address
with election officials (which you can do at the
polling place when you vote) so that it is correct
for future elections.
Suppose you have not moved, but the
registration records incorrectly say that you
have. Then you have the right to vote at your
polling place once you affirm that you continue
to live where you were registered.
Please check your state’s elections website
for information regarding your proper polling
place. You can find that website by going to
vote.gov.

5

Finally, federal law protects your right to vote
in presidential elections if you moved shortly
before Election Day or if you are out of state on
Election Day. This right is protected by Section
202 of the Voting Rights Act.

What if I registered to vote
but my name is not listed in
the poll book?
In most states, you can get a “provisional
ballot” to vote in federal elections after you
assert that you are registered and eligible.
Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act sets
out some rules about this. You may also be
offered a provisional ballot if an election official
asserts you are not eligible to vote.
State laws may provide other reasons for giving
you a provisional ballot—for example, if you do
not bring the state’s required ID when you go to
vote (in a state that requires showing ID to vote)
or if you have already been sent an absentee
ballot.
To vote with a provisional ballot, you must sign
a written affirmation. Your completed ballot will
then be held separately from the regular ballots
until an election official determines whether it
should be counted. You must be given written
instructions about how to find out if your ballot
was counted, and if it was not counted, the
reason why. Under state law, you may also have
to provide additional information by a specific
date for your ballot to be counted.

6

Voting Overseas
Can I vote if I am away on active
duty or living overseas?
Yes. If you would be eligible to vote if you were
living in the U.S., the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act protects your right
to register and vote absentee in federal elections.
This law protects citizens who are in the
military or the merchant marine and who
are serving on active duty away from home,
whether they are serving overseas or within
the U.S. It also protects their eligible family
members who are away from home because of
that service. And it protects the voting rights of
United States citizens who live overseas.
For federal elections, you may register to
vote and request an absentee ballot at the
same time by using the Federal Post Card
Application. You may request to receive your
absentee ballot either by mail or electronically.
You can also use a back-up Federal Write-In
Absentee Ballot if you have made a timely
application for, but have not received, your
absentee ballot.
For more information, visit the Federal Voting
Assistance Program website at fvap.gov and
the Civil Rights Division’s website at justice.
gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizensabsentee-voting-act.
7

Voting with Limited
English Proficiency
Which federal laws protect voters
with limited English proficiency?
Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act allows
voters who have difficulty reading (for example,
because their English is limited) to get help
with the voting process from someone they
choose. But that person cannot be the voter’s
employer or an official from the voter’s union.
Section 4(e) of the VRA prohibits election officials
from conditioning the right to vote on a citizen’s
ability to read, write, or understand English. The
statute protects voters who completed at least
the sixth grade in American-flag schools where
the classes were taught in a language other than
English. For example, this law applies to citizens
who went to a public school in Puerto Rico and
were taught in Spanish.
Also, Section 203 of the VRA requires places
where there are a sufficient number of
language minority voters to provide election
materials and assistance in other languages.
Every five years, the U.S. Census Bureau
identifies the places where this is required and
what languages they must use.
You can find the current list of these locations
at census.gov/programs-surveys/decennialcensus/about/voting-rights.html
8

Section 301 of the Help America Vote Act
requires those jurisdictions’ voting systems to
be accessible in the same languages.

Voting with a Disability
Which federal laws protect voters
with disabilities?
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
requires state and local governments to make
sure that people with disabilities have a full
and equal chance to vote.
This law applies to all aspects of voting. This
includes voter registration, getting into polling
places, and casting a ballot, both on Election
Day and during early voting.
The Help America Vote Act has rules about
polling places for federal elections. Each
polling place must have at least one voting
system that allows people with disabilities to
cast their ballot independently and privately.
Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act allows
voters with disabilities to get help with the
voting process from someone they choose. But
that person cannot be the voter’s employer or an
official from the voter’s union.

9

Reporting a Violation
How do I report a possible violation
of the federal voting rights laws?
Report possible civil rights violations to the
Civil Rights Division.
You can do this:
•

online at civilrights.justice.gov or

•

by telephone at (800) 253-3931

Report possible federal crimes, such as
concerns about threats against voters, threats
against elections officials, or election fraud, to
the FBI.
You can do this:
•

online at tips.fbi.gov or

•

by telephone at 800-CALL-FBI

10

Additional Resources
Where can I find more information
about how federal law protects
my right to vote?
You can find more information on the Civil
Rights Division’s website.
•

The Voting Section’s website is available
at justice.gov/crt/voting-section.

•

The Disability Rights Section’s website
about the Americans with Disabilities Act
is available at ada.gov.

Additional information and resources
concerning voting can be found at
justice.gov/voting and at vote.gov.

11

11

justice.gov/voting


Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, and
Disability Discrimination in Hiring
This guidance explains how algorithms and artificial intelligence can lead to disability
discrimination in hiring.
The Department of Justice enforces disability discrimination laws with respect to state
and local government employers. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) enforces disability discrimination laws with respect to employers in the private
sector and the federal government. The obligation to avoid disability discrimination in
employment applies to both public and private employers.

How employers use algorithms and artificial
intelligence
Employers, including state and local government employers, increasingly use
hiring technologies to help them select new employees.
For example, employers might use technology:
•
•
•
•
•

to show job advertisements to targeted groups;
to decide if an applicant meets job qualifications;
to hold online video interviews of applicants;
to use computer-based tests to measure an applicant’s skills or abilities; and
to score applicants’ resumes.

Many hiring technologies are software programs that use algorithms or artificial
intelligence. An algorithm is a set of steps for a computer to accomplish a task—for
example, searching for certain words in a group of resumes. Artificial intelligence
generally means that a computer is completing a task that is usually done by a person—
for example, recognizing facial expressions during a video interview.
While these technologies may be useful tools for some employers, they may also
result in unlawful discrimination against certain groups of applicants, including
people with disabilities.
1

How the ADA protects against disability
discrimination in hiring
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that seeks to remove barriers
for people with disabilities in everyday activities, including employment.
The ADA applies to all parts of employment, including how an employer selects,
tests, or promotes employees. An employer who chooses to use a hiring
technology must ensure that its use does not cause unlawful discrimination on the
basis of disability. 1
The ADA bars discrimination against people with many different types of disabilities.
Some examples of conditions that may be disabilities include: diabetes, cerebral palsy, deafness,
blindness, epilepsy, mobility disabilities, intellectual disabilities, autism, and mental health
disabilities. A disability will affect each person differently.
When designing or choosing hiring technologies, employers must consider how their tools
could impact different disabilities.
For example, a state transportation agency that designs its hiring technology to avoid
discriminating against blind applicants may still violate the ADA if its technology discriminates
against applicants with autism or epilepsy.

When employers’ use of hiring technologies may
violate the ADA
Employers must avoid using hiring technologies in ways that discriminate against
people with disabilities. This includes when an employer uses another company’s
discriminatory hiring technologies. 2
Even where an employer does not mean to discriminate, its use of a hiring technology
may still lead to unlawful discrimination. For example, some hiring technologies try to
predict who will be a good employee by comparing applicants to current successful
1
2

See 42 U.S.C. § 12112; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4.
See 42 U.S.C. § 12112; 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.4, 1630.6.

2

employees. Because people with disabilities have historically been excluded from many
jobs and may not be a part of the employer’s current staff, this may result in
discrimination. Employers must carefully evaluate the information used to build their
hiring technologies.
Screening Out People with Disabilities
Employers also violate the ADA if their hiring technologies unfairly screen out a
qualified individual with a disability. Employers can use qualification standards
that are job-related and consistent with business necessity. But employers must
provide requested reasonable accommodations that will allow applicants or
employees with disabilities to meet those standards, unless doing so would be an
undue hardship. When designing or choosing hiring technologies to assess
whether applicants or employees have required skills, employers must evaluate
whether those technologies unlawfully screen out individuals with disabilities. 3
Employers should examine hiring technologies before use, and regularly when in use, to
assess whether they screen out individuals with disabilities who can perform the
essential functions of the job with or without required reasonable accommodations.
For example, if a county government uses facial and voice analysis technologies to
evaluate applicants’ skills and abilities, people with disabilities like autism or speech
impairments may be screened out, even if they are qualified for the job.
Some employers try to evaluate their hiring technologies to see how they impact certain
groups, like racial minorities. Employers seeking to do the same with respect to people
with disabilities must keep in mind that there are many types of disabilities and hiring
technologies may impact each in a different way.

3

See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.4, 1630.6, 1630.9, 1630.10.

3

How to avoid disability discrimination when using
hiring technologies
Testing technologies must evaluate job skills, not disabilities.
Some hiring technologies require an applicant to take a test that includes an algorithm,
such as an online interactive game or personality assessment. Under the ADA,
employers must ensure that any such tests or games measure only the relevant skills
and abilities of an applicant, rather than reflecting the applicant’s impaired sensory,
manual, or speaking skills that the tests do not seek to measure.
For example, an applicant to a school district with a vision impairment may get passed
over for a staff assistant job because they do poorly on a computer-based test that
requires them to see, even though that applicant is able to do the job.
If a test or technology eliminates someone because of disability when that person can
actually do the job, an employer must instead use an accessible test that measures the
applicant’s job skills, not their disability, or make other adjustments to the hiring process
so that a qualified person is not eliminated because of a disability. 4
In addition, employers must ensure that they do not unlawfully seek medical or
disability-related information or conduct medical exams through their use of hiring
technologies. 5 For more information about this, see the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance:
Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations.
Reasonable accommodations for applicants with disabilities.
The ADA requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to individuals
with disabilities, including during the hiring process, unless doing so would create an
undue hardship for the employer. 6

See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5), (b)(7); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.9, 1630.11.
See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14.
6
See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9.
4
5

4

A reasonable accommodation is a change in the way things are usually done to give equal
opportunities to a person with a disability in applying for a job, performing a job, or accessing
the benefits and privileges of employment.
Examples of accommodations include allowing use of assistive equipment, modifying policies, or
making other changes to the way the hiring process or job is performed.
For example, if a city government uses an online interview program that does not work with a
blind applicant’s computer screen-reader program, the government must provide a reasonable
accommodation for the interview, such as an accessible version of the program,7 unless it would
create an undue hardship for the city government.

Some examples of practices that employers using hiring technologies may need to
implement to ensure that applicants receive needed reasonable accommodations
include:
•
•
•

telling applicants about the type of technology being used and how the
applicants will be evaluated;
providing enough information to applicants so that they may decide whether to
seek a reasonable accommodation; and
providing and implementing clear procedures for requesting reasonable
accommodations and making sure that asking for one does not hurt the
applicant’s chance of getting the job.

What to do if your rights have been violated or you
want to find out more
If you believe your employment rights have been violated because of a disability and
you want to make a claim of employment discrimination, you can file a “charge of
discrimination” with the EEOC. A discrimination charge is a signed statement asserting
Existing technical standards provide helpful guidance concerning how to ensure the accessibility of
website features. These include the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the Section 508
Standards, which the federal government uses for its own websites. More information is in this guidance
document. The employer and the individual with a disability should engage in an informal process to
clarify the applicant’s needs and to identify a reasonable accommodation.
7

5

that an organization engaged in employment discrimination. Information on the EEOC
charge process is available here.
If you believe that you or someone else was discriminated against based on a disability
because of a state or local government employer’s use of a hiring technology, you can
also file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Information on the DOJ complaint
process is available here.
For more detail on the topics addressed here and the impact of software, algorithms,
and artificial intelligence on employees, please see the EEOC’s technical assistance
document, The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Use of Software, Algorithms, and
Artificial Intelligence to Assess Job Applicants and Employees. Anyone with questions
about the impact of software, algorithms, and artificial intelligence on employees can
reach the EEOC at 1-202-921-3191 (voice), 1-800-669-6820 (TTY), or 1-844-234-5122
(ASL Video Phone).
In addition, anyone can call the ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 (voice) or 1800-514-0383 (TTY) with questions about their rights or responsibilities under the ADA.
ADA Specialists are available to answer questions on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time). On
Thursday, the Information Line is staffed from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).

6


Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA
This guidance describes how state and local governments and businesses open to the public can
make sure that their websites are accessible to people with disabilities as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
+Learn more about businesses’ and state and local governments’ ADA responsibilities.

Why Website Accessibility Matters
Inaccessible web content means that people with disabilities are denied equal access to
information. An inaccessible website can exclude people just as much as steps at an entrance
to a physical location. Ensuring web accessibility for people with disabilities is a priority for
the Department of Justice. In recent years, a multitude of services have moved online and
people rely on websites like never before for all aspects of daily living. For example,
accessing voting information, finding up-to-date health and safety resources, and looking up
mass transit schedules and fare information increasingly depend on having access to
websites.
People with disabilities navigate the web in a variety of ways. People who are blind may use
screen readers, which are devices that speak the text that appears on a screen. People who are
deaf or hard of hearing may use captioning. And people whose disabilities affect their ability to
grasp and use a mouse may use voice recognition software to control their computers and other
devices with verbal commands.
The ways that websites are designed and set up can create unnecessary barriers that make it
difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to use websites, just as physical barriers like
steps can prevent some people with disabilities from entering a building. These barriers on the
web keep people with disabilities from accessing information and programs that businesses and
state and local governments make available to the public online. But these barriers can be
prevented or removed so that websites are accessible to people with disabilities.

Examples of Website Accessibility Barriers
•

Poor color contrast. People with limited vision or color blindness cannot read text if
there is not enough contrast between the text and background (for example, light gray
text on a light-colored background).

•

Use of color alone to give information. People who are color-blind may not have
access to information when that information is conveyed using only color cues because
they cannot distinguish certain colors from others. Also, screen readers do not tell the
user the color of text on a screen, so a person who is blind would not be able to know
that color is meant to convey certain information (for example, using red text alone to
show which fields are required on a form).

•

Lack of text alternatives (“alt text”) on images. People who are blind will not be able
to understand the content and purpose of images, such as pictures, illustrations, and
charts, when no text alternative is provided. Text alternatives convey the purpose of an
image, including pictures, illustrations, charts, etc.

•

No captions on videos. People with hearing disabilities may not be able to understand
information communicated in a video if the video does not have captions.

•

Inaccessible online forms. People with disabilities may not be able to fill out,
understand, and accurately submit forms without things like:
o Labels that screen readers can convey to their users (such as text that reads
“credit card number” where that number should be entered);
o Clear instructions; and
o Error indicators (such as alerts telling the user a form field is missing or incorrect).

•

Mouse-only navigation (lack of keyboard navigation). People with disabilities who
cannot use a mouse or trackpad will not be able to access web content if they cannot
navigate a website using a keyboard.

When the ADA Requires Web Content to be Accessible
The Americans with Disabilities Act applies to state and local governments (Title II)
and businesses that are open to the public (Title III).

State and local governments (Title II)
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all services,
programs, and activities of state and local governments. State and local governments must take
steps to ensure that their communications with people with disabilities are as effective as their
communications with others. Many state and local government services, programs, and
activities are now being offered on the web. These include, for example, things like:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Applying for an absentee ballot;
Paying tickets or fees;
Filing a police report;
Attending a virtual town meeting;
Filing tax documents;
Registering for school or school programs; and
Applying for state benefits programs.

A website with inaccessible features can limit the ability of people with disabilities to access a
public entity’s programs, services and activities available through that website—for example,
online registration for classes at a community college.

For these reasons, the Department has consistently taken the position that the
ADA’s requirements apply to all the services, programs, or activities of state and
local governments, including those offered on the web.
Businesses that are open to the public (Title III)
Title III prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by businesses open to the public
(also referred to as “public accommodations” under the ADA). The ADA requires that businesses
open to the public provide full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to people with disabilities. Businesses open to the public must
take steps to provide appropriate communication aids and services (often called “auxiliary aids
and services”) where necessary to make sure they effectively communicate with individuals with
disabilities. For example, communication aids and services can include interpreters, notetakers,
captions, or assistive listening devices. Examples of businesses open to the public:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Retail stores and other sales or retail establishments;
Banks;
Hotels, inns, and motels;
Hospitals and medical offices;
Food and drink establishments; and
Auditoriums, theaters, and sports arenas.

A website with inaccessible features can limit the ability of people with disabilities to access a
public accommodation’s goods, services, and privileges available through that website—for
example, a veterans’ service organization event registration form.

For these reasons, the Department has consistently taken the position that the
ADA’s requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities
offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.

How to Make Web Content Accessible to People with
Disabilities
Businesses and state and local governments have flexibility in how they comply
with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective
communication. But they must comply with the ADA’s requirements.
The Department of Justice does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards , but the
Department’s longstanding interpretation of the general nondiscrimination and effective
communication provisions applies to web accessibility. 1
Businesses and state and local governments can currently choose how they will ensure that the
programs, services, and goods they provide online are accessible to people with disabilities.
Existing technical standards provide helpful guidance concerning how to ensure accessibility of
website features. These include the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the
Section 508 Standards, which the federal government uses for its own websites. Check out the
resources section for more references.

Even though businesses and state and local governments have flexibility in how
they comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimation and
effective communication, they still must ensure that the programs, services, and
goods that they provide to the public—including those provided online—are
accessible to people with disabilities.

1

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35.160(a), 36.201, 36.303(c).

Businesses and state and local governments should consider a variety of website features when
ensuring that their websites are accessible. The resources section has links to organizations that
explain how to make websites accessible. Examples of what businesses should do to make
websites accessible include (but are not limited to) the following practices:
•

Color contrast in text. Sufficient color contrast between the text and the background
allows people with limited vision or color blindness to read text that uses color.

•

Text cues when using color in text. When using text color to provide information (such as
red text to indicate required form fields), including text cues is important for people who
cannot perceive the color. For example, include the word “required” in addition to red text
for required form fields.

•

Text alternatives (“alt text”) in images. Text alternatives convey the purpose of an
image, including pictures, illustrations, charts, etc. Text alternatives are used by people who
do not see the image, such as people who are blind and use screen readers to hear the alt
text read out loud. To be useful, the text should be short and descriptive.

•

Video captions. Videos can be made accessible by including synchronized captions that
are accurate and identify any speakers in the video.

•

Online forms. Labels, keyboard access, and clear instructions are important for forms to be
accessible. Labels allow people who are blind and using screen readers to understand what
to do with each form field, such as by explaining what information goes in each box of a job
application form. It is also important to make sure that people who are using screen
readers are automatically informed when they enter a form field incorrectly. This includes
clearly identifying what the error is and how to resolve it (such as an automatic alert telling
the user that a date was entered in the wrong format).

•

Text size and zoom capability. People with vision disabilities may need to be able to use
a browser’s zoom capabilities to increase the size of the font so they can see things more
clearly.

•

Headings. When sections of a website are separated by visual headings, building those
headings into the website’s layout when designing the page allows people who are blind to
use them to navigate and understand the layout of the page.

•

Keyboard and mouse navigation. Keyboard access means users with disabilities can
navigate web content using keystrokes, rather than a mouse.

•

Reporting accessibility issues. Websites that provide a way for the public to report
accessibility problems allow website owners to fix accessibility issues.

This is not a complete list of things to consider. There are many existing resources to help
businesses and state and local governments with making websites accessible to people with
disabilities, some of which are included at the end of this document.

Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities is a Priority
for the Department of Justice
When Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, it intended for the ADA to keep pace with the rapidly
changing technology of our times. Since 1996, the Department of Justice has consistently taken
the position that the ADA applies to web content. As the sample cases below show, the
Department is committed to using its enforcement authority to ensure website accessibility for
people with disabilities and to ensure that the goods, services, programs, and activities that
businesses and state and local governments make available to the public are accessible.

Title II Sample Cases
•

Project Civic Access: As part of the Department’s Project Civic Access enforcement
work, the Department has reached numerous agreements with cities and counties across
the country that include web accessibility requirements. For example, City and County of
Denver, Colorado, City of Jacksonville, Florida, and City of Durham, North Carolina.

•

Miami University in Ohio: The Department reached an agreement with Miami
University in Ohio to resolve the United States’ lawsuit alleging that the university
discriminated against students with disabilities by providing inaccessible web content
and learning management systems.

•

Nueces County, Texas: The Department reached an agreement with Nueces County,
Texas, to address claims that the County used an online conference registration form
that was not accessible to people with disabilities who use software that reads text out
loud.

•

Louisiana Tech: The Department reached an agreement with Louisiana Tech University
to address claims that the university violated the ADA by using an online learning
product that was inaccessible to a blind student.

Title III Sample Cases
•

Rite Aid Corporation: The Department reached an agreement with Rite Aid Corporation
to address accessibility barriers in Rite Aid’s COVID-19 Vaccine Registration Portal.

•

Teachers Test Prep, Inc.: The Department reached an agreement with Teachers Test
Prep, Inc., regarding complaints that the test prep company’s online video courses did
not provide captions and were inaccessible to people who are deaf.

•

HRB Digital and HRB Tax Group (H&R Block): The Department reached an agreement
with H&R Block to address claims that the company failed to code its website so that
individuals with disabilities could use assistive technology such as screen reader
software, refreshable Braille displays, keyboard navigation, and captioning.

•

Peapod: The Department reached an agreement with Peapod to address claims that its
online grocery delivery services were not accessible to some individuals with disabilities.

Resources
•

18F Accessibility Guide: a comprehensive accessibility guide with resources published by
18F, a digital services agency under the General Services Administration (GSA).

•

Digital.gov: this site, which is part of the Technology Transformation Services at the GSA,
has resources on design of products, devices, services, or environments for people with
disabilities.

•

Section 508 Information and Communication Technology Accessibility Standards:
standards published by the U.S. Access Board addressing access to information and
communication technology under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

•

Section508.gov: a website published by the GSA with tools and training on implementing
website accessibility requirements under Section 508.

•

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG): guidelines published by the Web
Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium.


U.S. Department of Justice

Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10301, for
redistricting and methods of electing
government bodies
Published September 1, 2021

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark civil rights law that protects our democratic process against
racial discrimination. One of the key protections of the Voting Rights Act is Section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301,
which is a permanent nationwide prohibition on voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race,
color, or membership in a language minority group (as deﬁned in Sections 4(f)(2) and 14(c)(3) of the Act,
52 U.S.C. §§ 10303(f)(2), 10310(c)(3)). Section 2 prohibits both voting practices that result in citizens
being denied equal access to the political process on account of race, color, or membership in a language
minority group, and voting practices adopted or maintained for the purpose of discriminating on those
bases.

Section 2 covers any voting qualiﬁcation or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure
related to voting. As relevant for purposes of this guidance, Section 2 covers methods of electing public
ofﬁcials. This coverage includes a variety of electoral practices, such as: 1) districting plans used in
single-member district election systems or multi-member district election systems; 2) mixed election
systems, e.g., any combination of single-member, multi-member and at-large seats, and any associated
districting plans; and 3) at-large election systems.

1 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Following the release of 2020 Census redistricting data, all ﬁfty States and thousands of counties,
parishes, municipalities, school districts, and special purpose districts will craft new districting plans.
The Department of Justice will undertake its usual nationwide reviews of districting plans and methods of
electing governmental bodies to evaluate compliance with Section 2. It is the Department’s view that
guidance identifying its general approach to Section 2 in this context would be useful. This guidance is
not legally binding, nor is it intended to be comprehensive; rather, it is intended only to aid jurisdictions as
they comply with Section 2.

1

The discussion provides guidance concerning the following topics:

•

Enforcement of Section 2 by the Department of Justice

•

Section 2 Analysis: Discriminatory Result

•

Section 2 Analysis: Discriminatory Intent

•

Other Federal Laws Governing Redistricting

•

Use of 2020 Census Data

•

Complaints and Comments

1 In connection with the 2000 and 2010 Census redistricting cycles, the Department of Justice issued guidance concerning redistricting under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10304, which establishes preclearance requirements for voting changes in certain covered
jurisdictions. 76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (February 9, 2011); 67 Fed. Reg. 5411 (January 18, 2001). In 1973, the Supreme Court held that redistricting is a
”standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting” within the meaning of Section 5. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 531-35 (1973).
The Department’s guidance focused on Section 5 because it was the provision under which the Department initially reviewed redistricting plans
for covered jurisdictions. However, in 2013, the Supreme Court held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10303(b),
which determines which jurisdictions are required to comply with Section 5, is now unconstitutional. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 557
(2013). Hence, as the Department has described previously, there are no jurisdictions currently covered by Section 5, and jurisdictions
previously covered by the Section 4(b) formula do not need to seek preclearance for new voting changes, such as redistricting plans, absent
enactment of a new coverage provision. At present, the only jurisdictions that need to seek preclearance for redistricting plans (or other
changes in methods of election) are those covered for such changes by a current federal court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Act, 52
U.S.C. § 10302(c). The Department’s prior guidance concerning redistricting under Section 5 is no longer operative. It may still be of assistance
to jurisdictions in complying with Section 3.

2 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Enforcement of Section 2 by the Department of Justice

Congress has charged the Attorney General with responsibility for enforcement of the Voting Rights
Act on behalf of the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 10308(d). The Department of Justice has delegated that
enforcement to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. 28 C.F.R. § 0.50. The
Division has in turn vested enforcement responsibility for the civil provisions of the Voting Rights Act
and other federal voting rights laws in the Voting Section. Justice Manual § 8-2.271. The Division’s
decisions regarding initiation or settlement of litigation are committed to the Assistant Attorney
General. 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.50, 0.160; Justice Manual § 8-2.270. The Division can also consider participating
as amicus curiae in cases in any federal or state court that raise issues under Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 517.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of
race, color, or membership in a language minority group. This permanent, nationwide prohibition
applies to any voting qualiﬁcation or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure,
including districting plans and methods of election for governmental bodies. Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S.
25, 39-40 (1993).

As amended in 1982, Section 2 prohibits voting practices that result in citizens being denied equal
access to the political process on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
It also continues to prohibit adopting or maintaining voting practices for the purpose of disadvantaging
citizens on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Chisom v. Roemer, 501
U.S. 380, 394 n.21 (1991). The essence of a discriminatory results claim alleging vote dilution is that a
certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an
inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by minority voters to elect their preferred representatives.
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986). Regardless of whether an electoral law or practice violates
Section 2’s results test, Section 2 also prohibits any electoral law, practice, or procedure enacted or
maintained with the intent to disadvantage voters because of their race, color, or membership in a

3 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice

language minority group. States and political subdivisions should take the Voting Rights Act’s
requirements into account when redrawing electoral maps, altering a method of election, or
maintaining a method of election that could have the potential to discriminate.

The Department of Justice enforces Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act across the country. The
Department’s efforts to evaluate compliance with Section 2 and identify potential violations have a very
broad scope. This work encompasses jurisdictions of all types that conduct elections for their
governmental bodies. Thus, the Department reviews methods of election for U.S. House of
Representatives seats, state legislatures, county commissions, city councils, school boards, judicial
bodies, special governmental units with elected boards, and more. Likewise, the Department evaluates
all kinds of methods of election, including at-large election systems, districting plans involving multimember districts, districting plans using single-member districts, and mixed methods of election. The
Department evaluates districting plans and methods of election for compliance with Section 2
regardless of whether those plans or methods were adopted by legislative bodies, local boards,
redistricting commissions, state courts, or other governmental bodies. The Department’s analysis of
compliance with Section 2 is intensely localized insofar as it looks to the particular facts in each
jurisdiction and that jurisdiction’s method of election. Historically, the great majority of Section 2 cases
brought by the Department have addressed concerns about racial discrimination in voting at the local
level. The Department will monitor for compliance with Section 2 around the country in this decade, as
it has in prior decades.

2

When the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division authorizes a Section 2 enforcement
action, the Division seeks to resolve matters amicably and avoid protracted litigation where it is feasible
to do so.

3

2 Following release of the decennial census data, this work extends throughout each decade. The fact that the Department has not challenged
a particular jurisdiction’s method of election over any given time period does not constitute agreement that it complies with Section 2.
3 Some examples of recent Section 2 enforcement matters involving methods of election for governmental bodies that were settled by consent
decree include United States v. City of West Monroe, No. 3:21-cv-00988 (W.D. La. Apr. 14, 2021), ECF No. 4 (board of aldermen); United States v.
Chamberlain School District, No. 4:20-cv-04084 (D.S.D. June 18, 2020), ECF No. 4 (school board); and United States v. City of Eastpointe, No. 2:17cv-10079 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2019), ECF No. 64 (city council).

4 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice

The Department’s Section 2 cases challenging methods of election for governmental bodies include
actions against a variety of jurisdictions, including states, counties, municipalities, school districts, and
special districts.

4

The Department’s cases under Section 2 have also challenged a variety of different methods of
election, including at-large election systems, as well as district-based election systems and mixed
election systems involving a combination of at-large elections and district elections.

5

In the course of investigating and bringing enforcement actions under Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act, the Department applies well-established case law, which is brieﬂy described below.

4 See, e.g., United States v. Texas, No. 5:11-cv-00360 (W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 907 (state legislative and congressional districts); United States v.
Charleston County, No. 2:01-cv-00155 (D.S.C.) (county commission); United States v. Marion County, No. 4:99-cv-00151 (M.D. Ga.) (county
commission); United States v. Morgan City, No. 6:00-cv-01541 (W.D. La.) (city council); United States v. City of Lawrence, No. 1:98-cv-12256 (D.
Mass.) (city council and school board); United States v. Village of Port Chester, No. 1:06-cv-15173 (S.D.N.Y.) (board of trustees); United States v.
Georgetown County School District, No. 2:08-cv-00889 (D.S.C.) (school board); and United States v. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water
District, No. 2:00-cv-07903 (C.D. Cal.) (board of directors for special purpose district).
5 See, e.g., United States v. Blaine County, No. 4:99-cv-00122 (D. Mont.) (at-large elections for county commission); United States v. School Board
of Osceola County, No. 6:08-cv-00582 (M.D. Fla.) (single-member district plan for school board); United States v. Crockett County, No. 1:01-01129
(W.D. Tenn.) (multi-member district system for county commission); United States v. South Dakota, No. 3:00-cv-03015 (D.S.D.) (multi-member
district in state legislative districting plan); United States v. City of Euclid, No. 1:06-cv-01652 (N.D. Ohio) (mixed at-large and ward method of
election for city council).

5 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Section 2 Analysis: Discriminatory Result

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits, among other things, any electoral practice or procedure
that minimizes or cancels out the voting strength of members of racial or language minority groups in
the voting population. This phenomenon is known as vote dilution.

In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the Supreme Court set out the framework for challenges to
such practices or procedures. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 141 S. Ct. 2321, 2337
(2021), the Supreme Court described Gingles as “our seminal § 2 vote-dilution case” and recognized
that “[o]ur many subsequent vote-dilution cases have largely followed the path that Gingles charted.”

Analysis begins by considering whether three Gingles preconditions exist. First, the minority group
must be sufﬁciently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting-age
population in a single-member district. Second, the minority group must be politically cohesive. And
third, the majority must vote sufﬁciently as a bloc to enable it—in the absence of special
circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed—usually to defeat the minority
group’s preferred candidate.

If all three Gingles preconditions are present, consideration proceeds to an analysis of the totality of
the circumstances in a jurisdiction. This analysis incorporates factors enumerated in the Senate Report
that accompanied the 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendments, S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 28-29 (1982), which
are generally known as the “Senate Factors.” These factors are themselves drawn from earlier case
law. Id. at 28 nn. 112-113. The factors include:

6 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice

1.

the extent of any history of ofﬁcial discrimination in the state or political subdivision that
touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to
participate in the democratic process;

2.

the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially
polarized;

3.

the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts,
majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures
that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;

4.

if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been
denied access to that process;

5.

the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the
effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their
ability to participate effectively in the political process;

6.

whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals; and

7.

the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public ofﬁce in the
jurisdiction.

The Senate Report also identiﬁed two additional factors that have probative value in some cases:
•

whether there is a signiﬁcant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected ofﬁcials to the
particularized needs of the members of the minority group; and

•

whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision’s use of such voting qualiﬁcation,
prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.

The Senate Factors are neither comprehensive nor exclusive, and other factors may also be relevant
and may be considered. For example, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997,
1000 (1994), that proportionality of minority voters’ representation in a single-member district plan is
also a relevant fact in the totality of circumstances. A ﬁnding of vote dilution in violation of Section 2
does not require that a particular number or a majority of these factors is present in a jurisdiction.

7 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Gingles describes a review of the totality of the circumstances that requires a “searching practical
evaluation of the past and present reality” of a jurisdiction’s electoral system that is “intensely local,”
“fact-intensive,” and “functional” in nature. 478 U.S. at 45-46, 62-63, 79. Liability depends on the
unique factual circumstances of each case and the totality of the circumstances in the particular
jurisdiction in question. Thus, for example, the Supreme Court found that Texas’s use of
multimember state legislative districts impermissibly diluted minority voting strength, see White v.
Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 765-70 (1973), while concluding that Indiana’s use of multimember state
legislative districts did not, Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 148-55 (1971).

As the cases recognize, Section 2 vote-dilution violations can take several different forms. At-large
election systems or multimember districts can submerge minority voters within a larger majority
electorate that can effectively control all available positions. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48-49. Districting
plans may dilute minority voting strength by cracking or “fragmenting the minority voters among
several districts where a bloc-voting majority can routinely outvote them” or by “packing them into
one or a small number of districts to minimize their inﬂuence.“ De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1007; see also
Gingles, 478 U.S. at 46 n.11. Some plans may do both.

8 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Section 2 Analysis: Discriminatory Intent

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act also prohibits use of a redistricting plan or method of election
adopted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose, which is the same prohibition imposed by the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The Department will examine the circumstances surrounding adoption or continued use of a
redistricting plan or method of election to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence
of any discriminatory purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group. See, e.g., White, 412 U.S. at 765-70; Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S.
613, 623-27 (1982).

Direct evidence detailing a discriminatory purpose may be gleaned from the public statements of
members of the adopting body or others who may have played a signiﬁcant role in the process. See,
e.g., Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 508 (D.D.C. 1982) (three-judge court), aff’d, 459 U.S. 1166 (1983).
However, “smoking gun” or other stark evidence of intent is rare and is not required to establish a
discriminatory purpose. The Department will also evaluate whether circumstantial evidence
establishes a discriminatory intent. For example, in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry,
548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), the Supreme Court suggested that reducing Hispanic/Latino voting strength
in a district because a growing Hispanic/Latino community appeared poised to vote out an incumbent
“bears the mark of intentional discrimination.”

When assessing evidence of a possible discriminatory purpose, the Department of Justice is guided by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.,
429 U.S. 252 (1977); see also Brnovich, 141 S. Ct. at 2349 (citing the “familiar approach outlined in
Arlington Heights”).

Arlington Heights outlines a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to this “sensitive inquiry”: (1) The
impact of the decision; (2) the historical background of the decision, particularly if it reveals a series of
9 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice

decisions undertaken with discriminatory intent; (3) the sequence of events leading up to the decision;
(4) whether the challenged decision departs, either procedurally or substantively, from the normal
practice; and (5) contemporaneous statements and viewpoints held by the decisionmakers. 429 U.S. at
266-68. The Senate Factors (described above) may also provide evidence of discriminatory intent.
Rogers, 458 U.S. at 620-21.

Discriminatory intent implies that the decisionmaker selected or reafﬁrmed a particular course of
action at least in part because of, and not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identiﬁable
minority group. The Department of Justice will draw the normal inferences from the foreseeability of a
discriminatory impact, and Section 2 does not require proof that one or more government actors are
“racist” or bear racial animus. A concurring opinion in Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763 (9th
Cir. 1990), provides a useful example of intentional discrimination without racial animus.
Assume you are an anglo homeowner who lives in an all-white neighborhood. Suppose,
also, that you harbor no ill feelings toward minorities. Suppose further, however, that some
of your neighbors persuade you that having an integrated neighborhood would lower
property values and that you stand to lose a lot of money on your home. On the basis of
that belief, you join a pact not to sell your house to minorities. Have you engaged in
intentional racial and ethnic discrimination? Of course you have. Your personal feelings
toward minorities don’t matter; what matters is that you intentionally took actions
calculated to keep them out of your neighborhood.

Id. at 778 n.1 (Kozinski, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also N.C. State Conf. of the
NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 222 (4th Cir. 2016). Discriminatory intent need only be one motivating
factor behind the enactment or enforcement to violate Section 2. It need not be the only motivating
factor. So, for example, if a jurisdiction purposefully reduces minority voting strength in order to
protect an incumbent elected ofﬁcial, the fact that incumbent protection was a motivating factor—or
even the primary motivating factor—does not mean a plan is lawful. See, e.g., LULAC, 548 U.S. at 440;
Garza, 918 F.2d at 771.

10 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Other Federal Law Governing Redistricting

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is the Department of Justice’s principal tool to protect voters from
racial discrimination regarding redistricting and methods of election for governmental bodies. The U.S.
Constitution imposes additional requirements on redistricting plans beyond those in Section 2 of the
Act. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits substantial disparities or malapportionment in total
population between electoral districts in the same districting plan (colloquially known as the “oneperson, one-vote” principle). Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). The Fourteenth Amendment also
prohibits certain forms of racial gerrymandering in drawing electoral districts. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S.
630 (1993).

The Department does not enforce these particular constitutional requirements directly through Section
2. However, the Department will consider these background constitutional requirements when
enforcing Section 2. For example, malapportioned districts may facilitate vote dilution, and district
boundaries drawn predominantly on the basis of race may provide evidence of discriminatory intent. In
addition, the Department will consider whether any efforts to change the apportionment base for a
districting plan to a measure other than total population (e.g., to equalize eligible voter population
between districts) may violate Section 2 if the resulting districting plan, “designedly or otherwise,” will
“operate to minimize or cancel out” the voting strength of racial minority groups. Burns v. Richardson,
384 U.S. 73, 88 (1966) (quoting Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 439 (1965)). See U.S. Amicus Brief at
32-35, ﬁled in Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940 (U.S. Sept. 25, 2015).

Finally, in any lawsuit in which the Department participates, it will propose remedies that are consistent
with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

6

6 Beyond the requirements of Section 2 of the VRA, and the U.S. Constitution, districting plans and methods of election may be subject to other
federal or state requirements as well. See, e.g., 2 U.S.C. § 2c (requiring the use of single-member districts to elect members of the U.S. House of
Representatives).

11 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Use of 2020 Census Data

Consistent with past practice, the Department of Justice will evaluate districting plans and methods of
election using the 2020 Census redistricting data set issued by the Census Bureau pursuant to Public
Law 94-171, 13 U.S.C. § 141(c). The Census Bureau released the 2020 Census redistricting data to the
States and the public on August 12, 2021.

7

As in 2010 and 2000, the 2020 Census Public Law 94-171 data will include counts of persons who have
identiﬁed themselves as members of more than one racial category. This reﬂects the October 30, 1997,
decision by the Ofﬁce of Management and Budget (OMB) to incorporate multiple-race reporting into
the Federal statistical system. 62 Fed. Reg. 58,782. Likewise, on March 9, 2000, OMB issued Bulletin
No. 00–02 addressing “Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights
Enforcement.” Part II of that Bulletin describes how such census responses will be allocated by Federal
executive agencies for use in civil rights monitoring and enforcement.

The Department of Justice will follow both aggregation methods deﬁned in Part II of the Bulletin. The
Department’s initial review will be based upon allocating any response that includes white and one of
the ﬁve other race categories identiﬁed in the response. Thus, the total numbers for “Black/African
American,” “Asian,” “American Indian/Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Paciﬁc Islander,” and
“Some other race” reﬂect the total of the single-race responses and the multiple responses in which an
individual selected a minority race and white race.

The Department will then move to the second step in its application of the census data by reviewing the
other multiple-race category, which is comprised of all multiple-race responses consisting of more than
one minority race. Where there are signiﬁcant numbers of such responses, the Department will, as

7 In circumstances where states aim, pursuant to state law, to reallocate certain group quarters populations (such as individuals conﬁned in
correctional facilities), the Department will review these data as well.

12 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice

required by both the OMB guidance and judicial opinions, allocate these responses on an iterative basis
to each of the component single-race categories for analysis. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 473, n.1
(2003).

As in the past, the Department will analyze Hispanic/Latino persons as a separate minority group for
purposes of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, pursuant to Sections 2, 4(f)(2), and 14(c)(3) of the
Act. 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301, 10303(f)(2), 10310(c)(3). The Census asks respondents to answer both the
Hispanic origin question and the race question. A Hispanic/Latino tabulation of Census data includes
those who respond afﬁrmatively to the Hispanic origin question, irrespective of their response to the
race question, e.g., white, a minority race, “some other race” or multiple races. If there are signiﬁcant
numbers of responses in a jurisdiction that self-identify as Hispanic/Latino and one or more minority
races (for example, Hispanics/Latinos who list their race as Black/African American), the Department
will conduct its initial analysis by allocating those responses to the Hispanic/Latino category and then
repeat its analysis by allocating those responses to the relevant minority race category.

13 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

U.S. Department of Justice
Complaints and Comments

Members of the public are encouraged to send any complaints or comments regarding possible
violations of the federal voting rights laws to the Voting Section. This can include complaints or
comments about methods of election or districting plans that may violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act. This can also include requests for the Department to consider participation in cases as amicus
curiae on issues under the federal voting rights laws. Finally, this can include comments regarding this
guidance document. Complaints and comments can be submitted online through the Civil Rights
Division’s website portal –civilrights.justice.gov. The Voting Section can also be reached through its
toll-free number: (800) 253-3931.

14 | Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act