The Secretary would also do this for \u201cpolitical subdivisions\u201d that include some amount of an Indian reservation. However, in this case they would only be required to identify communities of voting-age LEP indigenous people within the reservation who represent more than 5% of the reservation\u2019s entire population.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Both these findings would then have to be updated on a five-year cycle.<\/p>\n
Election officials would then be required to provide language services necessary for the identified LEP communities to \u201cbe effectively informed of, and participate effectively in, voting-connected activities\u201d for any election.<\/p>\n
This would require translations in the covered languages for several different materials including all official and sample ballots, voter registration forms and explanatory material both physical and digital, all voter education publications, and all public notices about the electoral process including information like polling locations, registration deadlines, and voting instructions, among others.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Notably, the text specifically states that, \u201ctranslated materials produced solely by automated translation services are presumed to be insufficient to completely convey intent and essential meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n
In terms of spoken language, the bill would require election officials to offer over-the-phone<\/a> (OTP) interpreting \u201cfor any voter-related inquiries\u201d and in all covered languages within a county beginning 29 days before any election, and continuing until the election is certified.\u00a0<\/p>\n Covered \u201cpolitical subdivisions\u201d would also be required to provide bilingual poll workers or interpreters on-site at polling locations to assist LEP voters in all covered languages.<\/p>\n Finally, the bill would also expand on existing mandates by creating a framework allowing minority language communities to directly petition the state government for language services during elections when they have not been otherwise identified for coverage by the Secretary of State\u2019s office.<\/p>\n Major Potential Impact<\/p>\n The existing federal language access mandate under the Voting Rights Act of 1965<\/a> (VRA) sets a much higher threshold for requiring services than the proposed California bill.<\/p>\n Under Section 203<\/a> of the VRA, a given \u201cpolitical subdivision\u201d must provide language services at the polls for LEP communities with more than 10,000 voting-age individuals, or that represent more than 5% of the voting age population, and where the illiteracy rate among the LEP community is higher than the national rate.<\/p>\n Section 203 is also due to expire<\/a> in 2032, unless Congress extends the expiration date at the federal level. However, if SB 1360 passes it would effectively codify Section 203 into California state law regardless of what happens to the federal mandate.<\/p>\n By omitting the illiteracy requirement, and reducing the required population of LEP voters from 10,000 down to 5,000, the California bill sets a significantly lower threshold for mandating language services.\u00a0 If it passes, this would likely drive up demand for translation and interpreting services for elections in the state.<\/p>\n