28 C.F.R. § 55.19

Written materials

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Types of materials. It is the obligation of the jurisdiction to decide what materials must be provided in a minority language. A jurisdiction required to provide minority language materials is only required to publish in the language of the applicable language minority group materials distributed to or provided for the use of the electorate generally. Such materials include, for example, ballots, sample ballots, informational materials, and petitions.

(b) Accuracy, completeness. It is essential that material provided in the language of a language minority group be clear, complete and accurate. In examining whether a jurisdiction has achieved compliance with this requirement, the Attorney General will consider whether the jurisdiction has consulted with members of the applicable language minority group with respect to the translation of materials.

(c) Ballots. The Attorney General will consider whether a jurisdiction provides the English and minority language versions on the same document. Lack of such bilingual preparation of ballots may give rise to the possibility, or to the appearance, that the secrecy of the ballot will be lost if a separate minority language ballot or voting machine is used.

(d) Voting machines. Where voting machines that cannot mechanically accommodate a ballot in English and in the applicable minority language are used, the Attorney General will consider whether the jurisdiction provides sample ballots for use in the polling booths. Where such sample ballots are used the Attorney General will consider whether they contain a complete and accurate translation of the English ballots, and whether they contain or are accompanied by instructions in the minority language explaining the operation of the voting machine. The Attorney General will also consider whether the sample ballots are displayed so that they are clearly visible and at the same level as the machine ballot on the inside of the polling booth, whether the sample ballots are identical in layout to the machine ballots, and whether their size and typeface are the same as that appearing on the machine ballots. Where space limitations preclude affixing the translated sample ballots to the inside of polling booths, the Attorney General will consider whether language minority group voters are allowed to take the sample ballots into the voting booths.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 55.19 (a) (1999) (emphasis added).”

Georgia Ass'n of Latino Elected Officials, Inc. v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Reg. & Elections, 36 F.4th 1100 (11th Cir. 2022). “, when 8 Plaintiffs also cite 28 C.F.R. § 55.19 (a), which provides that “[a] jurisdiction required to provide minority language materials is only required to publish in the language of the applicable language minority group materials distributed to or provided for the use of…”

Montero v. Meyer, 696 F. Supp. 540 (D. Colo. 1988). · cites it 3× “This conclusion is strongly supported by 28 C.F.R. § 55.19 (a)’s statement that the written materials covered by the Voting Rights Act include “petitions.”

Delgado v. Smith, 861 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “A jurisdiction required to provide minority language materials is only required to publish in the language of the applicable language minority group *1494 materials distributed to or provided for the use of the electorate generally.”

Montero v. Meyer, 861 F.2d 603 (10th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “We also hold the district court erred in the deference it accorded the contents of 28 C.F.R. § 55.19 (a). While we agree that deference should be given administrative interpretations of law, we believe the principle was misapplied here.”

Padilla v. Lever, 429 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 55.19 (a) (emphasis added). While the Attorney Gen- eral’s views are not binding on this court, they are persuasive and bolster the conclusion that recall petitions are “other materials relating to the electoral process.”

In Re Cnty. of Monterey Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d 958 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “Indeed, the Title and Summary prepared by the County and required to be placed on multiple pages of the Initiative serves no purpose other than to.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.