The implementation of the act by states and jurisdictions could vary depending on the extent that the states provide assistance. Assistance Jurisdictions and States Reported Providing in 1996

Most jurisdictions that reported providing bilingual voting assistance in the 1996 general election said that they provided both written and oral assistance. In addition, some states had passed their own legislation requiring some form of bilingual voting assistance (see page 15). Moreover, two states, California and Hawaii, reported providing assistance to groups that the act did not require them to assist. Of the 11 states that reported providing written assistance, 7 reported providing bilingual voting instructions. Some Covered Jurisdictions Reported Providing No Bilingual Assistance

Although the jurisdictions that we surveyed were designated to provide bilingual voting assistance, 20 jurisdictions reported that they did not do so for the 1996 general election. They reported not providing assistance because they said that they (1) were unable to locate or identify individuals in their areas needing assistance (5 jurisdictions), (2) were not contacted by individuals in need of assistance or did not know of individuals needing assistance (13 jurisdictions), or (3) believed they had been exempted from providing assistance (2 jurisdictions). Some Jurisdictions and States Reported Providing Assistance to Groups That Were Not Required to Be Covered

Five jurisdictions and two states reported that in addition to providing assistance to minority language groups, as required under the act, they also furnished assistance to other groups. Costs Jurisdictions and States Reported Incurring to Provide Bilingual Voting Assistance in 1996

In response to our survey questions on the cost of providing bilingual voting assistance, 34 jurisdictions said they reported all costs and 30 jurisdictions said they reported partial costs for 1996 elections. Few Jurisdictions and States Said They Identified Costs for Providing Bilingual Voting Assistance

Covered jurisdictions and states are not required to maintain data on their costs of providing bilingual voting assistance. Jurisdictions’ Reported Costs for Elections in 1996

Of the 272 responding jurisdictions that reported providing bilingual voting assistance, 34 jurisdictions reported the total cost of providing such assistance, of which 6 jurisdictions said they provided oral assistance only but at no additional cost. States’ Reported Costs for Elections in 1996

Of the 12 state respondents that reported providing bilingual voting assistance, Florida and Hawaii reported total bilingual voting assistance costs for the 1996 elections. Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, and Rhode Island provided partial cost data. States’ and Jurisdictions’ Reported Costs for Prior Elections

For prior election years 1992 to 1995, 29 jurisdictions and 6 states provided cost data.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed aspects of the implementation of bilingual language provisons of the Voting Rights Act, focusing on: (1) the types of assistance jurisdictions provided for the 1996 general election; and (2) actual cost that covered jurisdictions incurred to provide bilingual voting assistance in 1996 and prior years, if available.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) of the 292 jurisdictions that responded to GAO's survey, 272 reported providing bilingual voting assistance for the 1996 general election; (2) of the 292 respondents, 213 said that they provided both written and oral bilingual voting assistance to their minority language voters, 45 said that they provided written assistance only, 14 said that they provided oral assistance only, and 20 said they did not provide any assistance; (3) with respect to the jurisdictions not providing any assistance, 5 said they tried, but were unable to identify individuals needing assistance, 13 said that no one needed assistance or that no one had ever sought assistance, and 2 believed that they had been exempted from providing assistance; (4) in addition, five jurisdictions and two states reported furnishing bilingual voting assistance to groups that the act did not require them to assist; (5) in addition to assistance provided by jurisdictions, states may also provide assistance, such as translation of state election propositions or translated sample ballots; (6) 12 of the 26 states that responded said that they furnished some bilingual voting assistance; (7) the 14 remaining states reported that they provided no bilingual voting assistance; (8) in addition, some states, such as California (CA) and New Jersey, have adopted their own laws requiring bilingual voting assistance; (9) as the act does not require covered jurisdictions and states to maintain data on the costs of providing bilingual, information provided by the surveyed jurisdictions and states on their costs was scant; (10) of the 272 jurisdictions that reported providing assistance in 1996, 208 were unable to provide information on their costs; (11) of the 64 jurisdictions that reported cost information, only 34 provided information on total costs and the remainder provided partial costs; (12) the 34 jurisdictions' reported costs varied greatly; (13) of the 12 states that provided assistance, only Hawaii and Florida reported their total costs for providing bilingual voting assistance in 1996; (14) Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, and Rhode Island (RI) reported partial cost data; (15) only 29 jurisdictions and 6 states provided some data on election year costs for 1992 to 1995; (15) moreover, the amounts jurisdictions reported spending on bilingual voting assistance in prior years varied widely; and (16) the amounts states reported also varied by year.