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.