Image
The Need for Language Access in Voting
The right to vote is a cornerstone of a just, multiracial democracy. But for millions of Americans, language poses a significant barrier to voting.
Census data identifies roughly 26 million people in the United States who, by federal government standards, are “limited English proficient” (LEP), meaning they speak English less than “very well.” And there are millions more who, while not necessarily LEP, may also face obstacles to voting because they speak a different language at home. All Americans should have a voice in our democracy, no matter the language they speak.
Yet thousands of voters are denied any meaningful opportunity to politically participate simply because they do not speak English. For these voters, navigating the voting process entirely in English can be especially challenging, if not impossible, in the case of ballot measures that contain complex policy arguments and legal terminology. LEP voters also face additional barriers when voting instructions are complicated, as can often be the case when voting by mail.
Alongside these challenges, LEP voters have also had to weather intentional discrimination, including mandated English-only ballots and literacy tests. While pretextually about language, these voting restrictions were also a way to deny people of color, who are disproportionately represented among LEP voters, the right to vote.
To address these problems, in 1975, the federal government enacted Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which requires the provision of translated ballots and other language services to certain LEP communities. In the following years, various local and state governments across the country also enacted their own language access policies.
The result is a patchwork of laws and policies that have helped increase access to the ballot for some voters, but still leave thousands of others with the unfair choice between voting in a language they do not fully understand and opting out of the political process altogether. Along with the federal government, local and state governments have critical roles to play in continuing to advance language access in voting.
Federally Required Language Access in Voting
The federal VRA prohibits discrimination in voting against “language minority” groups. To address language-based discrimination, Section 203 of the VRA mandates translated voting materials and interpreter services for language minority groups who meet certain population thresholds. Section 203 has increased access to the ballot for thousands of voters across the country. However, the VRA narrowly defines “language minorities” to include only "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage."
Federally Mandated Language Access Coverage under Section 203 of the VRA of 1965
This map was last updated in August 2025 to reflect the federal government’s 2021 Section 203 designations. These designations are provided every five years.
The number after each language group refers to the number of voting-age citizens in a particular jurisdiction who are members of a single language minority group and are Limited English Proficient (# LEP CVAP).
The percentage after each language group refers to the percentage of voting-age citizens in a particular jurisdiction who are members of a single language minority group and are Limited English Proficient (% LEP CVAP).
Generally, language groups qualify for federally-mandated language coverage if they have more than 10,000 LEP CVAP, or more than 5% LEP CVAP, and illiteracy levels among those citizens are higher than the national average. Native American and Alaska Native language groups have additional metrics for qualification. For more information, see our page on the Federal VRA.
Note that a few covered jurisdictions, such as the Ho-Chunk Nation Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land, do not have a single, continuous border or traditional land base, and are therefore not captured in the above map.
For more information, see our page on the Federal VRA
State and Local Laws Requiring Language Access in Voting
The gaps in federal language access protections have led a growing number of states and localities to enact their own policies that respond to language needs in a variety of ways. Some closely track Section 203 while others differ in important ways, such as the types of materials translated, the population requirements for coverage, and the language communities eligible for coverage. A handful of states have passed their own Voting Rights Acts that include more robust language access provisions than the federal VRA.
Best Practices
While there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the different language access problems faced by cities and states, best practices include:
- Codifying Policies. Most language assistance policies are set in statutes or ordinances, but some are merely reflected in grants of discretionary power to elections officials or in nonbinding resolutions. To ensure the long-term viability and enforceability of language assistance policies, they should be codified and amendable through a clear legislative process.
- Providing Mechanisms to Periodically Revisit Eligibility. A significant weakness in the federal VRA is the static "language minority " definition, which has remained largely unchanged since 1975. Building in mechanisms for revisiting the eligibility of language minority groups for language access coverage is critical as populations change over time.
- Tailoring Benchmarks to the Demographics of Each Jurisdiction. The language access provisions of the federal VRA should be considered a floor, not a ceiling. Each state and local government should determine, based on the needs of its population, whether to expand the language group definitions beyond federal law.
- Creating Clear Mechanisms and Responsibilities for Enforcement. Language access policies need well-developed lines of authority so they are properly enforced. This includes requiring not only a sufficient number of bilingual poll workers and trained interpreters but also administrative and judicial mechanisms for enforcement.
- Ensuring Sufficient Language Assistance, Both Oral and Written. To ensure high-quality translations of written materials, jurisdictions should allocate sufficient time and resources and rely on competent and trusted sources who can conduct manual (non-automated) translations that can be checked by bilingual staff and community members. Additionally, care should be given to provide oral interpreters, particularly when language communities have nuanced language needs, such as some indigenous communities.
- Providing Adequate Funding for Compliance. If states are committed to providing extensive language assistance in voting, they must allocate funds for local governments, as well as community organizations and local tribes to assist with outreach and translations.
- Fostering Community Engagement and Transparency. Language access policies must have clear mechanisms for engaging members of local communities and tribes to ensure accuracy and accessibility of translations, as well as transparency regarding policies and practices. Creating advisory committees that include members of language groups has been effective for monitoring compliance and improving overall services.
- Conducting Data Analysis and Periodic Updating. Language group eligibility must be periodically calculated and re-calculated as populations change. Recalculations every three years help ensure language assistance services keep up with demographic changes. Language access policies must provide sufficient support for ongoing data analysis and record keeping. Data compilations of actual usage of translated materials (within particular election cycles and over time) can also be critical in assessing the effectiveness of language assistance services and identifying opportunities for improvement.
Learn More
