United States v. Salem County and the Borough of Penns Grove, NJ, et al
(D.N.J. 2008)
On July 28, 2008, the Department simultaneously filed a
complaint and proposed settlement agreement against Salem County and the Borough of Penns Grove, NJ alleging that the parties violated the Voting Rights Act against Latino voters with disparate treatment, lack of Spanish-language materials and the denial to voters of the right to choose their assistor of choice. On July 29, the court entered the settlement agreement.
United States v. Kane County, IL (N.D. Ill 2007)
On September 26, 2007, the Department filed a complaint
against Kane County alleging violations of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 for Hispanic voters.
On November 7, the court entered an order granting the joint motion for extension of time for the Defendants to answer the United States' complaint and ordering the appointment of federal observers until December 31, 2010. The joint motion was submitted as part of a Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and Kane County which will ensure compliance with Sections 203 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act.
United States v. City of Earth, TX (N.D. Tex 2007)
On September 4, 2007, the court entered a consent decree
in Texas. On July 16, 2007, the Department filed a complaint
against the City of Earth alleging violations of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 for Hispanic voters.
United States v. Littlefield ISD, TX (N.D. Tex 2007)
On September 4, 2007, the court entered a consent
decree in Texas.
On July 16, 2007, the Department filed a complaint
against the Littlefield ISD alleging violations of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 for Hispanic voters.
United States v. Post ISD, TX (N.D. Tex 2007)
On September 4, 2007, the court entered a consent
decree in Texas. On July 16, 2007, the Department filed a complaint
against the Post ISD alleging violations of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
for Hispanic voters.
United States v. City of Seagraves ISD, TX (N.D. Tex 2007)
On September 4, 2007, the court entered a consent
decree in Texas. On July 16, 2007, the Department filed a complaint
against the Seagraves ISD alleging violations of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 for Hispanic voters.
United States v. Smyer ISD, TX (N.D. Tex 2007)
On September 4, 2007, the court entered a consent
decree in Texas. On July 16, 2007, the Department filed a complaint
against the Smyer ISD alleging violations of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 for Hispanic voters.
United States v. Galveston County, TX (S.D. Tex. 2007)
On July 16, 2007, the United States filed a complaint
against Galveston County under Section 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The complaint
alleges that the County failed to translate election materials and provide assistance for
limited-English proficient Spanish speaking voters. On July 20, 2007, the court entered the
consent decree.
United States v. City of Walnut, CA (C.D. Ca. 2007)
On November 9, 2007, the court entered a consent decree to ensure that the City translate election materials and provide assistance for limited-English proficient Chinese and Korean voters and ordering the appointment of federal observers until December 31, 2010.
On April 12, 2007, the United States filed a complaint
against the City of Walnut, CA under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint alleged that
the City failed to translate election materials and provide assistance for limited-English
proficient Chinese and Korean voters.
United States v. City of Philadelphia, PA (E.D. Pa. 2006)
On October 13, 2006, the United States filed a
complaint against the City of Philadelphia, PA, under Sections 203 and 208 of the Voting
Rights Act for failing to establish an effective Spanish bilingual program and for denying
limited-English proficient voters their assistor of choice. On April 26, 2007, the United States
filed an amended complaint, contemporaneously
with the signing of a settlement agreement. The amended complaint further alleged violations of
Sections 2 of the Voting Rights Act as the election system and procedures denied minority voters
equal access to the election process, and 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act for its failure to provide
election information to citizens educated in Spanish in American flag schools in Puerto Rico;
violations of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 for failing to provide alternative-language
information; and a violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 for
failing to remove deceased voters from the rolls. The settlement agreement, among other things,
requires the defendants to establish an effective bilingual program, including bilingual interpreters
and alternative-language information; to allow limited-English proficient voters to utilize
assistors of choice; to provide alternative-language information; and to undertake a program of
voter list maintenance. On June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania entered an order retaining
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement until July 1, 2009.
United States v. City of Springfield, MA (D. Mass. 2006)
On August 2, 2006, the United States filed a complaint
against the City of Springfield, MA alleging violations of Sections 203 and 208 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965. The complaint alleges that the city failed to provide an adequate pool of bilingual
workers to serve its Spanish-speaking voters, and that its poll workers interfered with
the ability of voters to receive assistance from the persons of their choice.
On September 15, 2006, a settlement agreement
was entered which will allow the Department to monitor future elections in the City of
Springfield and will require the City to increase the number of bilingual poll workers,
employ a bilingual coordinator, and establish a bilingual advisory group. On January 16,
the Court granted an extension to
the settlement order until January 31, 2010.
United States v. Brazos County, (S.D. Tex. 2006)
On June 28, 2006, the United States filed a complaint
against Brazos County, TX alleging violations of Sections
4(f)(4) and 208 of the Voting Rights Act.
Specifically, the United States alleged that Brazos County had violated Section 4(f)(4) by failing
to translate all election-related material into Spanish and by failing to provide an adequate number
of bilingual poll workers trained to assist Spanish-speaking voters on election day.
The United States also alleged that Brazos County violated Section 208 by failing to ensure that
voters who were disabled, blind, or illiterate were allowed to use their chosen assistors.
A consent decree, entered by the court on
June 29, 2006, requires, among other things, that the county increase the number of bilingual poll
workers, translate all election-related material in Spanish, and permit voters their assistor
of choice consistent with Section 208. The consent decree expires on March 1, 2009.
United States v. Cochise County, AZ (D. Ariz 2006)
On June 16, 2006, the United States filed a complaint
against Cochise County, AZ for violations of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Section
302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The complaint alleged that Cochise County violated
Section 203 requirements by failing to provide an adequate number of bilingual
poll workers trained to assist Spanish-speaking voters on election day and by failing
to publicize effectively election information in Spanish. On October 12, 2006, the court entered a
consent decree which requires the
County to translate all its election related materials into Spanish and hire an adequate
number of poll workers and which authorizes the assignment of
federal observers to monitor elections in the County.
United States v. Hale County, TX (N.D. Tex. 2006)
On February 27, 2006, the United States filed a complaint
alleging that Hale County in Texas violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The
complaint alleges that Hale County violated Section 203 requirements by failing to provide for
an adequate number of bilingual poll workers trained to assist Spanish-speaking voters on
election day and by failing to publicize effectively election information in Spanish. On April 27, 2006,
a consent decree was entered which will
allow the Department to monitor future elections in Hale County and will require the
County to increase the number of bilingual poll workers, employ a bilingual coordinator,
and establish a bilingual advisory group.
United States v. Ector County, TX (W.D. Tex. 2005)
On August 23, 2005, the United States filed a complaint
alleging that Ector County in Texas violated Section 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act. The
complaint claimed that the county failed to provide an adequate number of bilingual workers to
serve the county's Spanish-speaking population and failed to effectively publicize information
to the Spanish-speaking community. The consent decree, which
was approved by a federal district judge on August 26, requires the county to establish an
effective Spanish language program and authorizes the use of federal observers to monitor the
county's elections.
United States v. City of Boston, MA (D. Mass. 2005)
On July 29, 2005, the United States filed a complaint
against the City of Boston under Sections 2 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint
alleged that the City's election practices and procedures discriminate against members of
language-minority groups, specifically persons of Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese heritage, so
as to deny and abridge their right to vote in violation of Section 2. The suit also alleged
that the City has violated Section 203 by failing to make all election information available
in Spanish to voters who need it. On October 18, 2005, the three-judge court issued
an Order/Memorandum of Agreement and Settlement
authorizing federal examiners through December 31, 2008; retaining the court’s
jurisdiction through expiration of the federal examiner designation and the agreement,
both to occur on December 31, 2008; and providing that either the Department or the City
may petition to the court to resolve any disputes during the life of the agreement.
United States v. City of Azusa, CA (C.D. Cal. 2005)
On July 14, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent decree alleging
that the City of Azusa violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.
The complaint
claimed that the city failed to translate much of its election-related information into Spanish, as
required by the Act. The consent
decree, was approved on August 26 by a three judge federal court, requires the
city to establish an effective Spanish language program and authorizes the use of federal
observers to monitor the city's elections.
United States v. City of Paramount, CA (C.D. Cal. 2005)
On July 14, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent decree alleging
that the City of Paramount violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.
The complaint
claimed that the city failed to translate much of its election-related information into Spanish, as
required by the Act. The consent
decree, which was approved on August 23, requires the city to establish an
effective Spanish language program and authorizes the use of federal observers to monitor
the city's elections.
United States v. City of Rosemead, CA (C.D. Cal. 2005)
On July 14, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent decree alleging
that the City of Rosemead violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.
The complaint
claimed that the city failed to translate most of its election-related information into Spanish,
Chinese, and Vietnamese or to provide bilingual assistance at polling sites in those languages, as
required by the Act. The consent decree, was
approved by a three judge court, and requires the city to establish
effective Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese language election programs and authorizes the
use of federal observers to monitor the city's elections.
United States v. Westchester County (S.D. NY 2005)
In this action, the United States alleged in its complaint
that the county had violated both Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to have an effective
Spanish language election program and Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act by failing to post the
information required by the section to be posted in polling places. On July 19, 2005,
a consent decree resolving both claims was approved by a three-judge court. The decree would require the county to provide a Spanish language election
program and assure compliance with the Help America Vote Act.
On January 3, 2008, the consent decree was extended through December 31, 2008.
United States v. San Benito County (N.D. Cal. 2004)
In this action, the United States alleged in its complaint
that the county had violated both Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act by
failing to have an effective Spanish language election program and Section 302 of the Help
America Vote Act by failing to post the information required by that section to be posted
in polling places and by failing to provide the requisite written information regarding the
process of casting a provisional ballot. The court entered a consent
decree, requiring the county to provide a Spanish language election program. This consent decree expired
on December 31, 2006.
United States v. San Diego County (S.D. Cal. 2004)
In this case, the United States' complaint alleged
that the county's practices and procedures concerning Spanish heritage and Filipino voters
violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The United States and the county agreed to
a memorandum of agreement
and a stipulated order, both of
which were filed on June 23, 2004. The agreement provides for Spanish and Tagalog (Filipino)
language election programs, and also a complete Vietnamese language program to serve a
minority language group that narrowly missed the threshold for Section 203 coverage. The
court signed the order, including an interlocutory order providing for the appointment of
federal examiners and observers pursuant to Section 3 of the Act on July 7, 2004. The
agreement expires on March 31, 2007; Section 3 coverage will expire following the 2006
general election, absent a motion for additional relief based on non-compliance by the county.
United States v. Ventura County (C.D. Cal. 2004)
The United States claimed that the county violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.
The complaint
alleged that the county did not have sufficient bilingual polls officials and did not
translate all election-related information into Spanish, as required by the Act.
On September 2, 2004, the court entered a
consent decree,
which requires the county establish an effective Spanish language election program. The decree,
which expires on August 1, 2007, provides that if the county is not complying with the decree's
requirements, the United States would have an additional 90 days to move for additional relief.
United States v. Suffolk County (E.D. N.Y. 2004)
The United States alleged in its complaint that
the county violated Section 203 by not having sufficient bilingual election officials, not
translating all election-related information into Spanish, as required by the Act, and by
failing to adequately train its election officials to prevent hostile treatment of Hispanic
voters, who are limited-English proficient. On October 4, 2004, the court entered a
consent decree, which requires the county
establish an effective Spanish language election program. The decree, which expires on
January 31, 2008, also permits the assignment of federal observers to monitor county elections.
United States v. Yakima County (E.D. Wash. 2004)
In its complaint,
the United States alleged that the county had violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
by not providing effective election-related materials, information, and/or assistance in
Spanish to those persons who were limited English proficient. The United States and the county
were able to resolve the matter with a consent decree
(Esp.)
that required the county to establish an effective Spanish language election program.
This consent decree expired on December 31, 2006.
United States v. Brentwood Union Free School District (E.D. N.Y. 2003)
The United States alleged in its complaint that the Brentwood School District had
violated Section 203 because it did not have sufficient bilingual election officials,
did not translate all election-related information into Spanish, as required by the Act,
and failed to adequately train its election officials to prevent hostile treatment of
Hispanic voters who are limited-English proficient. On July 14, 2003, the court entered
a consent decree, which requires the county establish an effective Spanish language election
program. The decree, which expires on January 31, 2007, also permits the assignment of
federal observers to monitor school district elections.
United States v. Berks County (E.D.
Pa. 2003)
The United States alleged in its complaint that the county
violated several sections of the Voting Rights Act. The facts showed that the county
discriminated against Hispanic individuals, primarily Puerto Rican voters, through hostile
treatment at the polls, failure to provide adequate language assistance, and by not
permitting Hispanic voters to bring assistors of their choice into the polling place.
These actions resulted in violations of Sections 2, 4(e), and 208 of the
Voting Rights Act. The court granted a preliminary injunction
on March 18, 2003, and permanent relief on August 20, 2003.
Both decisions resulted in increased protection for Hispanic voters. Since the court
entered its decision, the Department has monitored elections, utilizing federal observers
pursuant to a provision of the order, to ensure compliance with the court's order.
United States v. Orange County (M.D. Fla. 2002)
On June 28, 2002, the United States filed a complaint
against Orange County, FL alleging violations of Sections 203 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act.
The complaint alleged that the county failed to provide an adequate number of bilingual
workers to serve its Spanish-speaking voters, and that its poll workers interfered with the
ability of voters to receive assistance from the persons of their choice.
A consent decree, signed by a three judge court
on October 8, 2002, required the City to increase the number of bilingual poll workers and to
permit voters their assistors of choice consistent with Section 208. The consent
decree expired on January 31, 2005.
United States v. Bernalillo County (D.N.M. 1998)
In 1998, the United States filed its complaint alleging that Bernalillo County had violated
Sections 2 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to provide voting and election
information in the Navajo language, an American Indian language that is historically unwritten.
The parties initially resolved this case that year through a
consent decree that required the county to establish an effective Native American Election
Information Program. On July 1, 2003, a three-judge federal court entered an order approving a
Stipulation which extended certain provisions of the consent decree through January 31, 2005.
United States v. Cibola County (D.N.M. 1993)
In its complaint, filed in 1993, the United States alleged that Cibola County had violated Sections 2
and 203 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to provide voting and election information
in the Keresan and Navajo languages, American Indian languages that are historically unwritten.
The parties initially resolved this case in 1994 through a stipulation and order that
required the county to establish an effective Native American Election Information Program.
On May 3, 2004, a three-judge federal court entered an order approving a joint stipulation,
which modified the original one, and extended it through December 31, 2006. An
amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2007
which added claims under the NVRA and the HAVA. Simultaneous with that filing, the parties
filed joint papers resolving those claims as well as extending a prior consent decree. The court entered
the second order on March 19, 2007. On October 8, 2009,
the court entered an order extending and modifying
the existing stipulations until March 15, 2011.
United States v. Socorro County (D.N.M. 1993)
The United States initiated this action in 1993
with its complaint alleging that the county had violated Sections 2 and 203
of the Voting Rights Act by failing to provide voting and election information in the Navajo
language, an American Indian language that is historically unwritten. The parties initially
resolved this case in 1994 through a consent agreement that required the
county to establish an effective Navajo language program. On July 13, 2004, a three-judge
federal court issued an order extending the federal examiner provision of that
consent agreement through December 15, 2004.
United States v. New Mexico and Sandoval County (D.N.M. 1988)
On November 28, 2007, a three-judge court entered an order and amended joint stipulation,
modifying and extending the existing consent decree until January 31, 2009.
The United States filed a
complaint alleging that the State of New Mexico and Sandoval County had violated Sections 2
and 203 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to provide voting and election information in Keres
and Navajo, American Indian languages that are historically unwritten.
The parties initially resolved this case in 1990 through a settlement agreement
that required the State and County to implement a Native American Election Information Program (NAEIP).
Pursuant to the agreement, the case was dismissed against the state defendants on December 31,
1990. On September 9, 1994, the court entered a consent decree proposed by the County and the United States, which modified the original NAEIP and extended the modified program through
September 9, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the court entered an order approving a joint
stipulation between the County and the United States, which further modified the NAEIP and
extended its provisions through January 15, 2007. On April 3, 2007, the United States and the
County filed a joint motion seeking the current extension.
