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.


Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
National Credit Union Administration
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Justice
Federal Housing Finance Agency

February 22, 2022
Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs Under the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or
Bureau), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) (hereafter, the agencies) are
issuing this interagency statement to remind creditors of the ability under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B to establish special purpose credit programs to meet
the credit needs of specified classes of persons. Many financial institutions have publicly
committed billions of dollars to better meet the needs of underserved communities, and this
statement calls attention to the special purpose credit options under ECOA and Regulation B.1
ECOA and Regulation B permit creditors to extend special purpose credit offered pursuant to—


any credit assistance program expressly authorized by Federal or state law for the benefit
of an economically disadvantaged class of persons;



any credit assistance program offered by a not-for-profit organization for the benefit of
its members or an economically disadvantaged class of persons; or

1 See Equal Credit Opportunity (Regulation B); Special Purpose Credit Programs, 86 Fed. Reg. 3762, 3764

n.26 (Jan. 15, 2021).

1.



any special purpose credit program offered by a for-profit organization, or in which such
an organization participates to meet special social needs, if it meets certain standards
prescribed in regulations by the Bureau.2

On December 21, 2020, the CFPB issued an Advisory Opinion (AO) on special purpose credit
programs to clarify the content that a for-profit organization must include in a written plan that
establishes and administers a special purpose credit program under Regulation B.3 In addition,
the AO clarified the type of research and data that may be appropriate to inform a for-profit
organization’s determination to establish a special purpose credit program to benefit a specified
class of persons.4
Previously, some stakeholders expressed uncertainty as to the treatment of ECOA and
Regulation B special purpose credit programs under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).5 On
December 7, 2021, HUD released guidance concluding that special purpose credit programs
instituted in conformity with ECOA and Regulation B generally do not violate the FHA.6
Accordingly, creditors may consider the use of special purpose credit programs across all types
of credit covered by ECOA and Regulation B.
As creditors consider how they may expand access to credit to better address special social
needs, the agencies encourage creditors to explore opportunities to develop special purpose
credit programs consistent with ECOA and Regulation B requirements as well as applicable safe
and sound lending principles.
While the agencies do not determine whether a program qualifies for special purpose credit
status, creditors with questions about any aspect of ECOA and Regulation B’s special purpose
credit provisions may consult their appropriate regulatory agencies.

2 See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(c)(1)-(3); 12 C.F.R. § 1002.8(a).
3 See 86 Fed. Reg. at 3762, 3764–65 (Jan. 15, 2021); see also Susan M. Bernard and Patrice Alexander

Ficklin, Expanding Access to Credit to Underserved Communities (July 31, 2020) (calling attention to
opportunities to develop special purpose credit programs and use of affirmative advertising consistent
with the ECOA and Regulation B requirements).
4 See 86 Fed. Reg. at 3765–66.
5 See 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.
6 See
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/GC/documents/Special_Purpose_Credit_Program_OGC_guidance_1s
2-6-2021.pdf.
2.


U.S. Department of Justice

Ballot Drop Box Accessibility
The Americans with Disabilities Act
Introduction

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects the civil rights of people with disabilities. Title II of the
ADA requires state and local governments to ensure that people with disabilities have a full and equal
1

opportunity to participate in all government programs, including voting. The ADA applies to all parts of
the voting process, including ballot drop boxes.

A ﬁxed ballot drop box

1 See 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

1 | Ballot Drop Box Accessibility

U.S. Department of Justice
Ballot Drop Box Accessibility

The ADA requires that ballot drop boxes are accessible to people with disabilities. Ballot drop boxes
must comply with ADA accessibility standards, known as the 2010 ADA Standards.

2

To be accessible, a ballot drop box must include:
an accessible route to the ballot drop box
an accessible clear ﬂoor or ground space in front of the ballot drop box
an accessible ballot drop box opening
Accessible Route to Ballot Drop Box
An accessible route must connect the ballot drop box to accessible elements on the site, such as
accessible parking spaces, accessible passenger drop-off areas, and an accessible building entrance.
An accessible route has the following features:
Stable, ﬁrm, and slip-resistant surface (no grass, gravel, or standing water, for example)
No surface openings (such as holes or grate openings) greater than ½ inch wide
Clear width no less than 36 inches
Running slope in the direction of travel no greater than 1:20 (5.0%)
Cross slope no greater than 1:48 (2.08%)
No changes in level greater than ½ inch (no steps, for example)
No protruding or overhanging objects (such as tree branches)

2 The 2010 ADA Standards apply to building or site elements that are “ﬁxed.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(d). Fixed means built-in, bolted, secured, or

chained in place, and includes elements like the route and ground space in front of the drop box. For a ballot drop box that is not ﬁxed, elements
such as the reach range to the opening to put the ballot in the drop box or the usability of a handle, are not covered by the 2010 ADA Standards
speciﬁcally. Instead, the Title II regulation applies, and the 2010 ADA Standards are used as a guide. For more information, the Title II regulation,
28 C.F.R. pt. 35, can be found at https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm and the 2010 ADA Standards, 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.104, are available at https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm.

2 | Ballot Drop Box Accessibility

U.S. Department of Justice

An accessible route
connects the ballot drop
box with accessible parking,
accessible passenger
loading zone, and an
accessible entrance.

Accessible Clear Floor or Ground Space in Front of Ballot Drop Box
An accessible clear ﬂoor or ground space in front of the ballot drop box has the following features:
At least 30 inches by 48 inches
Stable, ﬁrm, and slip-resistant surface (no grass, gravel, or standing water, for example)
No surface openings (such as holes or grate openings) greater than ½ inch wide
Surface slopes no greater than 1:48 (2.08%) in any direction
No changes in level

3 | Ballot Drop Box Accessibility

U.S. Department of Justice

An accessible ballot drop box with
accessible clear ground space and
an accessible opening

Accessible Ballot Drop Box Opening
An accessible ballot drop box opening has the following features:
Handle and opening are located between 15 inches and 48 inches above the ﬂoor or ground
surface for an unobstructed forward or side reach
Handle is operable with one hand without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist

The ADA Checklist for Polling Places (“Polling Places Checklist”), provides guidance to election
ofﬁcials for determining whether a polling place is accessible to voters with disabilities. The Polling
Place Checklist can be used along with this guidance to assess elements such as parking, exterior,
and interior routes to the ballot drop box, ramps and curb ramps along the routes, and facility
entrances. Title II and its regulation, the Polling Place Checklist, and the 2010 ADA Standards are
available at www.ada.gov.

4 | Ballot Drop Box Accessibility

U.S. Department of Justice
ADA Checklist for Ballot Drop Boxes

This checklist is designed to provide guidance for determining whether a ballot drop box has basic
accessibility features for voters with disabilities and includes the route to the ballot box (Section J) and
the ballot drop box features (Section K). Each question below provides citations to the 2010 ADA
Standards for Accessible Design. Please review the 2010 ADA Standards for all requirements. This ballot
drop box checklist can be used with the ADA Checklist for Polling Places (Polling Place Checklist) to
ensure the accessibility of other features at the site, such as parking and passenger drop-off areas
(Sections A-I). This checklist, the Polling Place Checklist, the Title II regulation, and the 2010 ADA
Standards are available at www.ada.gov.
J

Route to Ballot Drop Box

J1 Is the walking surface stable, ﬁrm, and slip resistant? (2010 ADA
Standards for Accessible Design § 302.1)

J2 Is the route free of surface openings greater than 1/2”, such as holes
in the pavement or grate openings? (§ 302.3)

J3 Is the route at least 36” wide? (§ 403.5.1)
J4 Is the running slope of any part of the route greater than 1:20?

(§ 403.3) (If yes, complete Ramp Form, Section G, in the Polling Place
Checklist, available at ADA Checklist for Polling Places)

J5 Is the cross slope of the route no greater than 1:48? (§ 403.3)
J6 Is the route free of changes in level greater than 1/2”, including
stairs? (§ 303)

J7 Is the route free of wall mounted objects that protrude more than 4”
into the path of travel and are between 27” and 80” high? (§ 307.2)

J8 Is the route free of post mounted objects that protrude more than 12”
into the path of travel and are between 27” and 80” high? (§ 307.3)

J9 Are objects that hang over the pedestrian route including the
underside of exterior stairs, 80” or higher? (§ 307.4)

5 | Ballot Drop Box Accessibility

Yes

No

N/A

Comments /
Remedies

U.S. Department of Justice

K

Route to Ballot Drop Box

Yes

No

N/A

Comments /
Remedies

K1 Is the clear ﬂoor or ground space in front of the ballot drop box at

least 30” by 48”? (2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design § 305.3)

K2 Is the surface of the clear ﬂoor or ground space stable, ﬁrm, and slipresistant? (§ 302.1)

K3 Is the clear ﬂoor or ground space free of surface openings greater

than 1/2”, such as holes in the pavement or grate openings? (§ 302.3)

K4 Is the clear ﬂoor or ground space level with surface slopes no greater
than 1:48 in any direction? (§ 305.2)

K5 Is the clear ﬂoor or ground space free from vertical changes in level?
(§ 305.2)

K6 Is the ballot drop box handle and opening located between 15 inches

and 48 inches above the ﬂoor or ground surface for an unobstructed
side or forward reach? (§§ 308.2.1, 308.3.1)

K7 If a handle is provided, is it operable with one hand without tight
grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist? (§ 309.4)

To assess other features of a ballot drop box site, see the Polling Place Checklist, available at ADA
Checklist for Polling Places.

6 | Ballot Drop Box Accessibility


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


U.S. Department of Justice

Guidance Concerning
Federal Statutes Affecting
Methods of Voting
Published July 28, 2021

U.S. Department of Justice
The U.S. Department of Justice is committed to ensuring full compliance
with all federal laws regarding elections. This includes provisions of
federal law that apply to methods of casting a ballot.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many voters were concerned about voting at a polling place on Election
Day in 2020. Large numbers of those voters took advantage of opportunities to vote by mail, or to cast an
early in-person ballot, and many jurisdictions around the country modiﬁed their prior procedures to
promote both the safety of their citizens and robust democratic participation. The 2020 election
produced record turnout, with over 160 million citizens casting ballots, a result that was all the more
impressive given the difﬁculties the pandemic posed to both voters and election administrators. Since
the 2020 election, some States have responded by permanently adopting their COVID-19 modiﬁcations;
by contrast, other States have barred continued use of those practices or have imposed additional
restrictions on voting by mail or early voting. In view of these developments, guidance concerning federal
statutes affecting methods of voting is appropriate.

The Department’s enforcement policy does not consider a jurisdiction’s re-adoption of prior voting laws
or procedures to be presumptively lawful; instead, the Department will review a jurisdiction’s changes in
voting laws or procedures for compliance with all federal laws regarding elections, as the facts and
circumstances warrant. See Memorandum from the Acting Attorney General (Feb. 3, 2021).

This document is meant to provide guidance regarding certain federal voting rights laws enforced by the
Department of Justice. Citations are provided to assist the reader but are not intended to be
comprehensive. The discussion provides guidance concerning the following topics:
▪

Federal Voting Rights Laws That Bear On How Citizens Cast Their Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

▪

FederalLaws Governing
Voting
ByMail and
Absentee
-Ballots
- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
Federal
LawsGoverning
In Person
(Including
Early Voting) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9
- Voting
---

▪

1 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

"

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Voting Rights Laws That Bear On How Citizens Cast Their Ballots

Several federal statutes protect the rights of citizens throughout the voting process.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA), 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301-10702
The VRA protects the democratic process from racial discrimination and other inequalities.

Section 2 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, bars 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. This includes rules specifying
the time, place, or manner of voting. Section 2 forbids both practices that result in voters being denied
equal access to the political process on account of race and those adopted or maintained because of
adverse effects on voters on account of race.

Section 202 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10502, protects the rights of citizens who have recently moved or
who are absent from the State on Election Day to participate in presidential elections.

Section 203 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10503, protects voters with limited English proﬁciency. It
establishes bilingual election requirements in jurisdictions identiﬁed by the U.S. Census Bureau as
having either a speciﬁed percentage or a speciﬁed number of voting-age citizens who have limited
English proﬁciency. Under Section 203, all information that is provided in English about the electoral
process must be provided in the language of members of the covered language group to the extent
needed to allow them to participate effectively in the electoral process and all voting-connected
activities.

Section 208 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10508, protects voters with disabilities and voters with literacy or
language limitations, including with difﬁculty reading or writing in English. It allows these voters to
have assistance in casting their ballots from a person of the voter’s choice, other than an employer or
union ofﬁcial.

2 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
Laws That Protect Voters With Disabilities
Three federal statutes protect the rights of voters with disabilities.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34, protects voters with
disabilities. It requires State and local governments to ensure that qualiﬁed individuals with disabilities
have a full and equal opportunity to vote.

The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (“VAEHA”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20101-07, protects
both elderly voters and voters with disabilities. It establishes additional requirements to improve polling
place access for elderly individuals and people with disabilities during federal elections.

Title III of the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 21081-21102, sets certain requirements for
federal elections. These include requirements for voting machine accessibility.

The Department has published guidance on these federal laws and the protections they provide to voters
with disabilities. See The Americans with Disabilities Act and Other Federal Laws Protecting the Rights
of Voters
-with
-Disabilities
- - (ada.gov)
-·

Law That Protects Service Members and Citizens Abroad

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301-11, protects
the voting rights of certain active-duty members of the uniformed services, their eligible family
members, and United States citizens residing overseas. It guarantees them the right to vote by absentee
ballot in elections for federal ofﬁce, and includes speciﬁc requirements designed to ensure that ballots
are sent to them in time to be completed, returned, and counted.

3 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
Laws That Protect All Voters Against Intimidation In The Voting Process.
Federal law prohibits intimidating people from voting or attempting to vote.

Section 11(b) of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b), provides that “No person, whether acting under color of
law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any
person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.”

Section 12 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § § 20511(1)(A), makes it
illegal for any person, “including an election ofﬁcial,” to “knowingly and willfully intimidate[], threaten[],
or coerce[], or attempt[] to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for . . . registering to vote, or voting,
or attempting to register or vote” in any election for federal ofﬁce.

Section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(b), provides that “[n]o person, whether
acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to
vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any
candidate” for federal ofﬁce.

4 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Laws Governing Voting By Mail And Absentee Ballots
Voting by mail was the most common means by which Americans cast their votes in 2020. Voting by mail
can be an effective way of ensuring that many citizens have a practical ability to participate in the
election process, given the various logistical difﬁculties that may preclude individuals from appearing at
a polling place on Election Day.

Currently, all States provide at least some voters with opportunities to vote by mail. And voting by mail
has grown steadily over time. States’ practices fall into four categories:
1.

Some jurisdictions mail ballots to all active registered voters.

2.

Some jurisdictions automatically mail such ballots to all voters who have joined permanent
vote-by-mail lists (sometimes called “absentee” voting lists, although voters need no longer
be absent from the jurisdiction to join them).

3.

Some jurisdictions provide vote-by-mail ballots on an election-by-election basis to any voter
who requests one for that election.

4.

A ﬁnal group of jurisdictions provide vote-by-mail ballots upon application only to voters who
meet a set of special eligibility requirements (e.g., age, absence from the jurisdiction, or some
other criterion). For example, under State law, in many jurisdictions citizens who are absent
while attending educational institutions away from their voting address or who are detained
in correctional facilities pending trial are entitled to cast their votes by mail. (In those States
where individuals who are detained pursuant to a criminal conviction are entitled to vote, they
too use vote by mail.)

Most jurisdictions allow voters who have received their ballots by mail (or who picked up absentee
ballots in person) to avoid the uncertainty of having to return their ballots by mail. They allow voters to
return completed ballots to an election ofﬁce, an early in-person voting location, a secure ballot drop
box, or a polling place on Election Day (where the vote-by-mail voter is not required to stand in line to
receive a ballot). These alternatives are particularly critical for voters who receive ballots late, have
limited time to bring a ballot to a postal facility, or lack access to regular mail.

5 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Law Mandates Certain Forms Of Voting By Mail.
Section 202 of the VRA requires all States to allow qualiﬁed residents who are absent from their election
district on Election Day to cast an absentee ballot for President and Vice President. 52 U.S.C. § 10502(d).
Section 202 also gives voters who will be absent on Election Day until seven days beforehand to request a
mail ballot for President and Vice President and until the close of the polls on Election Day to return it. Id.
Finally, Section 202 gives voters who move less than thirty days before an election for President or Vice
President a right to vote absentee in the jurisdiction from which the voter has moved. 52 U.S.C. §
10502(e).

UOCAVA provides speciﬁc mail ballot protections for certain members of the uniformed services absent
from home due to active-duty service, their eligible family members, and United States citizens residing
overseas. See 52 U.S.C. § 20310(1), (5). Among other requirements, States must:

▪

Accept UOCAVA ballot requests received at least 30 days before a federal election, by mail
or electronically, including on a prescribed federal postcard application.

▪

Send absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters by mail or electronically, according to the
preference of the voter, at least 45 days before the election (as long as the voter requested
the ballot at least 45 days before Election Day).

▪

Permit UOCAVA voters to cast absentee ballots in all federal elections.

▪

Accept a prescribed federal write-in absentee ballot from UOCAVA voters.

52 U.S.C. § 20302(a).
Moreover, for any election for Federal ofﬁce, States must provide ballots to UOCAVA voters who
request a ballot any time during the year when an election is occurring. They must do this without
regard to whether the request came before the ﬁrst date on which the State would accept or process
ordinary applications for mail ballots during that year. 52 U.S.C. § 20306.

6 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Law Protects Voters During States’ Vote By Mail Processes.
Beyond afﬁrmative requirements to States to facilitate some citizens’ ability to vote by mail, other
federal laws also govern how States conduct vote by mail.

Section 2 of the VRA forbids jurisdictions from establishing rules or regulations concerning voting by
mail that are intended to deny or abridge citizens’ right to vote on account of race or that result in an
election system’s not being equally open to voters of all races. This prohibition reaches rules involving
the availability of vote by mail, deadlines, application and ballot formalities, or drop boxes for returning
ballots.

Section 203 of the VRA imposes requirements on covered jurisdictions to conduct a bilingual vote by
mail program. This includes translation of all written materials and provision of oral bilingual assistance
regarding ballot applications and ballot return. 28 C.F.R. 55.15. Covered jurisdictions that provide all
active voters with a mail ballot may provide all materials in applicable minority languages. Otherwise,
they must develop an effective targeting system for minority language materials. 28 C.F.R. 55.17,
55.18(a).

Section 208 of the VRA allows voters with disabilities and voters with literacy or language limitations,
including with difﬁculty reading or writing in English, to receive assistance in casting an absentee ballot
from a person of the voter’s choice, excluding employers and union ofﬁcials.

The Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”), 52 U.S.C. § 21081(a)(1)(B), requires that mail-in ballots for federal
elections notify the voter of the effect of casting multiple votes for an ofﬁce and contain instructions on
how to correct a ballot before it is cast and counted. This includes telling voters how to get a
replacement ballot if necessary.

7 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
The ADA. For many voters with disabilities, voting by mail on a paper ballot does not provide an
opportunity to vote privately and independently, as required by Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34.
The ADA requires States to provide auxiliary aids and services to voters with disabilities so that they may
have an equal opportunity to vote. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

The anti-intimidation and anti-interference statutes described above —Section 11(b) of the VRA,
Section 12 of the NVRA, and Section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 —all apply in full force to citizens
seeking to vote by mail in covered elections. They each prohibit intimidation of, and interference with,
voters seeking to vote or returning ballots and those permitted by law to assist them.

8 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Laws Governing In-Person Voting (Both Early and Election Day)
States—including those that provide mail ballots to all active voters—generally conduct some form of
in-person voting on Election Day in federal elections. However, many States now allow Election Day
voting at vote centers, where any voter in a jurisdiction may receive and cast a regular ballot, rather than
limiting a voter to an assigned polling location. This both improves voter convenience and reduces the
number of provisional ballots that are not counted because they were cast in the wrong precinct.

Early voting has formed an increasingly large percentage of the total votes cast in federal elections.
Early in-person voting comes in two forms: early voting and in-person absentee. Early voting is typically
available to all eligible voters, whereas in-person absentee voting is typically limited to voters qualiﬁed to
cast a mail ballot.

Federal law speciﬁcally prescribes the date for the federal general election. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1.
Federal law does not speciﬁcally set forth uniform procedures for locations and hours of voting on
Election Day. Federal law also does not speciﬁcally prescribe uniform procedures for dates, hours and
locations for primary elections. Nor does federal law speciﬁcally prescribe uniform procedures for early
voting for federal elections.

However, the provisions of the VRA discussed above do govern States’ decisions about both early voting
and in-person voting on Election Day.

Section 2 of the VRA prohibits jurisdictions from eliminating or declining to establish in-person voting or
limiting hours and locations of in-person voting if such decisions are intended to impede voters on
account of race from casting a ballot or will result in an election system that is not equally open to voters
on account of race.

9 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
Section 203 of the VRA requires covered jurisdictions to translate relevant written materials used at
early voting sites and to ensure that oral bilingual assistance is available for early in-person voting to
exactly the same degree that such materials and assistance are required on Election Day. 28 C.F.R.
55.15, 55.18(d)-(e).

Section 208 of the VRA also allows voters with disabilities and voters with limited-English proﬁciency to
receive assistance from a person of the voter’s choice (other than an employer or union ofﬁcial) when
voting in person, whether during an early voting period or on Election Day.

The ADA contains a number of protections for voters casting their ballots in person, whether during early
voting or on Election Day.

The ADA requires that States and local governments provide voters with disabilities a full and equal
opportunity to vote in person. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. This generally requires that
jurisdictions:
▪

Allow voters with disabilities to vote independently and privately in a manner that is equal
to that afforded to others, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).

▪

Ensure that voting locations are physically accessible and free of barriers, 28 C.F.R. §§
35.130(b)(4), 35.149-150.

▪

Provide accessible voting booths to voters with disabilities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).

▪

Permit voters to be accompanied by a service animal, 28 C.F.R. § 35.136.

▪

Provide auxiliary aids or services necessary to ensure effective communication, including
providing an accessible ballot, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

▪

Receive assistance/support from a person of their choice or a poll worker, 28 C.F.R. §
35.130(b)(7).

▪

Provide reasonable modiﬁcations to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary, 28
C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).

10 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
The Department has also published general guidance regarding ADA compliance at polling places. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, ADA Checklist for Polling Places (2016), available at www.ada.gov/votingchecklist.pdf;
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Solutions for Five Common ADA Access Problems at Polling Places (2014), available
at https://www.ada.gov/ada_voting/voting_solutions_ta/polling_place_solutions.pdf.
-----·---· --HAVA also establishes a number of requirements for election administration at in-person voting locations
during federal elections.

Each in-person polling place must be equipped with at least one direct recording electronic voting
system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities. 52 U.S.C. § 21081(a)(3)(B). HAVA
requires voting systems to provide alternative language accessibility in jurisdictions covered by Section
203 of the VRA. 52 U.S.C. § 21081(a)(4).

Voting systems used for in-person voting where ballots are processed immediately should allow voters to
verify their vote before the ballot is cast and counted, notify the voter of overvotes, and provide voters
with an opportunity to change the ballot before it is cast and counted. 52 U.S.C. § 21081(a)(1)(A).

On the other hand, in-person absentee voting locations that merely collect completed and sealed
absentee ballot envelopes that are opened and processed at a central count location should notify voters
of the effect of casting multiple votes for an ofﬁce and provide instructions on how to correct a ballot
before it is cast and counted (including issuance of a replacement ballot if necessary). 52 U.S.C. §
21081(a)(1)(B).

Election ofﬁcials at in-person voting locations must also permit individuals who declare themselves
eligible and registered to vote—but who do not appear in the poll book or who election ofﬁcials assert
not to be eligible voters—to cast a provisional ballot according to the detailed procedures in Section 302
of HAVA. 52 U.S.C. § 21082.

11 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting

U.S. Department of Justice
HAVA also requires the posting of additional information at each polling place on the day of each election
for federal ofﬁce. 52 U.S.C. § 21082(b).

The anti-intimidation and anti-interference statutes described above —Section 11(b) of the VRA,
Section 12 of the NVRA, and Section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 —prohibit intimidation, threats,
and interference related to casting a vote in person (whether early or on Election Day).

Thus, while much of the law governing how eligible citizens cast their ballots is governed by the law of
the State in which they live, federal law provides critical protections to all voters. Because voting has
long been recognized as “preservative of all rights,” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886), it is
essential that all eligible citizens’ right to cast a ballot, and have that ballot counted, be protected.

If jurisdictions have questions about the constraints federal law places on the methods of voting they are
using or propose to use, they should contact the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.

If you would like to report a potential voting rights violation, you can use the Civil Rights Division's online
complaint form to submit a report or call (800) 253-3931.

12 | Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting