Nearly two and a half centuries into our experiment of “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” we have learned much about what supports a healthy democracy. We know that expanding the ability of all eligible citizens to vote is the central pillar. That means ensuring that all eligible voters can cast a vote, that all lawful votes are counted, and that every voter has access to accurate information.
The right to vote has been called the “crown jewel” of American liberties, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow.
Yet, for American citizens who are not highly proficient in English, the right to vote can be elusive. Barriers to voting based on language skills, which have come in the form of literacy tests and English-only ballots, have a long history in the United States. Combined with persistent inequities in public education that have created obstacles to English-language acquisition, more recent barriers imposed by states and localities have left many voters with inadequate access to the ballot – and even disenfranchisement.
Download the full Language Access report
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) and other federal laws designed to protect voters of color from discrimination have helped remove many of the obstacles facing limited English-proficient voters.
Literacy tests have been outlawed nationwide. Discrimination against members of “language minority groups” was explicitly prohibited by the 1975 amendments to the VRA. And federally mandated assistance – such as interpreter services and translated ballots and election materials – in areas of the country with large language-minority populations has been a hallmark of the VRA for decades.
Nonetheless, federal mandates under the VRA have resulted in only a patchwork of services nationwide. Some language assistance is required in many of the nation’s largest states and cities, as well as in less populated areas that contain high percentages of immigrants from Asia or Latin America or significant populations of Native American voters. Yet, thousands of limited-English-proficient voters throughout the country have been left with little or no assistance either because they fall outside the VRA’s definition of “language minority” or because their numbers, while large and growing, fail to satisfy the VRA’s mathematical formulas for triggering coverage.
These gaps in coverage have led several states and localities to reinforce and to expand VRA-mandated language assistance in a variety of ways. Some jurisdictions have made election materials outside of the official ballot, such as outreach literature, voter registration forms, and sample ballots more widely available to language groups not covered by federal requirements. Others have lowered the thresholds for language assistance to numbers or percentages below the federal triggers, thus expanding the number of voters receiving assistance. And some jurisdictions have broadened the scope of local coverage to include language groups that fall outside the formal definition of “language minority” under the VRA. Depending on local demographics and advocacy, states and localities have voluntarily extended electoral assistance to speakers of languages such as Arabic, Armenian, Farsi, French, Haitian Creole, Polish, Russian, Somali, and Ukrainian.
However, expanded access for limited English-proficient voters has not come without problems or controversy. Underinvestment, even among supportive jurisdictions, is commonplace: Shortcomings in implementation and compliance – including ballot errors, mistranslations, and a lack of interpreters – arise frequently, whether in VRA-mandated jurisdictions or in areas with expanded coverage. Backlash against the provision of bilingual or multilingual ballots is also not unusual; criticism from many voters and public officials is often vocal and severe, even openly nativist or racist. And opponents of any language assistance – whether federal, state, or local – continue to argue that English is the dominant language in the United States and that providing help in a language other than English causes disunity and creates disincentives to voters becoming more proficient in English. This opposition is often reflected in public policies, including laws that make English the official language of government.
This report examines both existing language access gaps and solutions to expand access for limited-English-proficient voters, under the federal VRA and under state and local policies that build on federal coverage.
This report examines both existing language access gaps and solutions to expand access for limited-English-proficient voters, under the federal VRA and under state and local policies that build on federal coverage. First, the report examines language needs on a national level, presenting census data on language usage, English proficiency, and political participation. Next, the report provides an overview of the federal VRA and its language assistance and enforcement provisions. These federal laws include Section 2, the VRA’s general antidiscrimination provision that protects language minority groups from discrimination; Section 203, which creates the broad network of language assistance available in many parts of the country; and Section 208, the VRA’s provision guaranteeing the right to personal, nongovernmental assistors for disabled and illiterate voters, including limited-English-proficient voters.
Next, the report discusses key weaknesses in the federal VRA and analyzes how state and local policies have attempted to build upon and expand federal coverage. State and local policies can be categorized in several ways – by form, scope of language coverage, types of assistance, level of government, and geography. The report does not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of all types of state and local language assistance; instead, it focuses on key examples and case studies that reflect larger trends that are occurring in many parts of the country. The report concludes by discussing best practices and providing recommendations for improving state and local coverage. Among the key recommendations are the codification of formal language access policies, the allocation of sufficient resources and funding for language assistance, the creation of clear mechanisms for implementation and enforcement by both governmental and private actors, and the development of strong and transparent measures that facilitate community input and evaluation.
Download the full Language Access report
