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

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