Language assistance threshold

This section establishes a clear statutory mandate that autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures, and autonomous counties must provide election materials—including ballots, voter rolls, voter certificates, candidate lists, election certificates, and seals—in the locally prevalent ethnic/minority language alongside the standard language. The trigger is statutorily defined: autonomous administrative status, and the requirement is enumerated and mandatory ('应当同时使用').

The statute explicitly codifies two exhaustive, measurable thresholds that trigger the duty to provide multilingual ballot access: either 2,000 English-limited citizens speaking a shared minority language, or 2.5% of the county population meeting that criterion. Both thresholds are defined with reference to specific census data sources. The Secretary of State's role is purely ministerial—to determine which counties meet these statutory criteria and notify them. No administrative discretion exists; the trigger is bright-line and statutory.

The statute codifies specific, enumerated thresholds for triggering language assistance: a municipality must either have >2% of voting-age citizens who are limited English proficient in a shared language, or >4,000 such citizens. These numerical triggers are set directly in statute (not delegated to administrator discretion), providing clear and measurable criteria that both left- and right-leaning scholars would recognize as statutorily grounded procedural clarity.

“The Secretary of the State shall find that such significant and substantial need exists if, based on the best available data, which may include information from the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey, or data of comparable quality collected by a governmental entity: (A) More than two per cent of the citizens of voting age of such municipality speak a particular shared language other than English and are limited English proficient individuals; (B) More than four thousand of the citizens of voting age of such”

§ 101.2515 codifies language-assistance for ballot issues. Supervisors of elections may request DoS translation in any minority language for which a county is a VRA covered jurisdiction.

“Upon the request of a supervisor of elections made no later than 60 days prior to the date of a general election, the Department of State shall provide a written translation of a statewide ballot issue in the language of any language minority”

The section codifies in statute the trigger for language assistance: the Voting Rights Act's federal requirements. This is a clear, enumerated statutory standard that does not rely on administrative discretion to determine whether language assistance is needed—the trigger is anchored to federal law as administered by the office of elections.

“Translate the statement into other languages required under the federal Voting Rights Act, as specified by the office of elections”

The statute codifies a clear, enumerated trigger for language assistance: the threshold is a literate linguistic minority equal to more than five percent of the total population of any parish. The statute specifies which authorities may determine this threshold and mandates the secretary of state's duty to provide bilingual materials once triggered. The procedural requirement is grounded entirely in statute with a defined, measurable threshold.

This section codifies in statute the triggers for language assistance by tying the requirement to 52 U.S.C. § 10503 (the Voting Rights Act's language-minority thresholds) and establishing a statutory fallback requiring assistance in at least the seven most commonly spoken languages plus American Sign Language when federal thresholds are not met. The obligation is mandatory ("shall") and the triggers are enumerated, satisfying the criterion's requirement that language assistance thresholds be codified in statute.

The statute explicitly codifies the trigger for language assistance: bilingual sample ballots must be provided in districts where 10% or more of registered voters have Spanish as their primary language. This threshold is enumerated in the statute itself, not left to administrative discretion, and applies uniformly across both district boards and commissioners of registration.

“except that for districts in which the primary language of 10% or more of the registered voters is Spanish, a properly stamped envelope containing a copy of the bilingual sample ballot, addressed to each registered voter in the district of such board at the address shown on the register shall be prepared and deposited”

§ 17-208 (NY John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act) codifies language-assistance requirements with specific thresholds: >2% / ≥300 individuals of voting age are members of a single language-minority group and LEP, OR >4,000 LEP citizens of voting age, OR >2% of Native American voting-age population in a Native American reservation political subdivision.

“more than two percent, but in no instance fewer than three hundred individuals, of the citizens of voting age of a political subdivision are members of a single language-minority group and are limited English proficient.”

The statute sets clear, enumerated triggers for language assistance in voters' pamphlets: the five most commonly spoken languages statewide (other than English) and any language spoken by 300 or more individuals in a county. These thresholds are codified directly in statute with defined data sources (American Community Survey, Portland State University Population Research Center) and update intervals (at least every five years), providing transparent and objective criteria rather than leaving the decision to administrative discretion.

The statute codifies explicit, enumerated thresholds for triggering language assistance obligations: a 5% single-language-minority threshold or a 10,000-person threshold, combined with an illiteracy-rate condition. These triggers are set in statute (not left to administrative discretion), are mathematically defined, and apply automatically when the Director of the Census makes the factual determination. The provision establishes clear, statutory procedure for when bilingual materials must be provided.

“a city or town shall be subject to the provisions of the bilingual voting materials requirement whenever the Director of the Census determines, based on census data, that: More than five percent (5%) of the citizens of voting age of a city or town are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; or More than ten thousand (10,000) of the citizens of voting age of a city or town are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; and The illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority as a group is higher than the national illiteracy rate.”

President Election Law Article 17 codifies the language-assistance threshold: in municipalities where a minority language is in official use on the day of election proclamation, the candidate list is printed in both Serbian Cyrillic and the minority language. Voter Register Law Article 7 (4724) parallels for voter-list entries (dual-script name recording for minority-language speakers).

“У општини и граду у којима је на дан расписивања избора у службеној употреби језик националне мањине, поред листе кандидата за избор председника Републике која се штампа на српском језику ћириличким писмом, израђује се и листа кандидата за избор”

§ 272.002 codifies an explicit statutory language-assistance threshold: bilingual (English/Spanish) election materials must be used in each election precinct in a county in which 'five percent or more of the inhabitants are persons of Spanish origin or descent according to the most recent federal decennial census.' § 272.001 mandates bilingual materials generally; § 272.004 extends them to early voting. Statutory trigger codified.

“five percent or more of the inhabitants are persons of Spanish origin or descent”

52 USC § 10503 (VRA bilingual provisions) codifies multilingual ballot triggers: covered States/political subdivisions defined by Census-based criteria (5% / 10,000 voters speaking a single language minority and limited-English proficient, plus illiteracy rate above national average). Statutory triggers explicit.

“no covered State or political subdivision shall provide voting materials only in the English language”

The statute explicitly codifies three quantitative thresholds (5% single language minority, 10,000+ single language minority, and 5% American Indian language minority) that trigger covered locality designation and mandate language assistance. The triggers are enumerated exhaustively in statute rather than left to administrative discretion, providing clear procedural grounding.

“The State Board shall designate a county, city, or town as a covered locality if it determines, in consultation with the Director of the Census, on the basis of the 2010 American Community Survey census data and subsequent American Community Survey data in five-year increments, or comparable census data, that (i) more than five percent of the citizens of voting age of such county, city, or town are members of a single language minority and are unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process; (ii) more than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age of such county, city, or town are members of a single language minority and are unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process; or (iii) in the case of a county, city, or town containing all or any part of an Indian reservation, more than five percent of the American Indian citizens of voting age within the Indian reservation are members of a single language minority and are unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (CEN art. 64 and related provisions) addresses ballot approval, campaign periods, media advertising restrictions, and mandatory presidential debates. It contains no language regarding language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. The statutory text does not codify triggers for language assistance.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 26 concerns the appointment of an acting Electoral Commissioner and does not address language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. This section establishes administrative succession procedures and is procedurally unrelated to the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

Article 116 addresses candidate list presentation, ballot sigle language options, and administrative procedures, but does not establish triggers or thresholds for voter language assistance (such as bilingual ballots or language-minority population thresholds). The section permits sigle formulation in one or multiple national languages and references cross-language translation, but these are administrative presentation rules for parties, not voter assistance procedures. No statutory codification of language assistance eligibility or triggers appears in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses mineral resource exploitation and energy rights under the Brazilian Constitution. It contains no reference whatsoever to voter assistance, language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds—the subject matter of the criterion. The criterion is inapplicable to this constitutional article on natural resource policy.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

Section 95(3) requires the notice to invite electors to request language interpreters, establishing a statutory procedure for electors to signal language needs. However, the section does not codify any population threshold, trigger formula, or enumerated list of languages for which assistance must be provided—it merely invites contact without defining when the returning officer must actually provide assistance or in which languages. The duty to provide is not statutory; only the duty to invite contact is.

“The notice of confirmation of registration shall invite the elector to contact the returning officer if he or she (a) requires a language or sign language interpreter”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 88 addresses municipal and city electoral commission procedures for recording voting results and transmitting records to the unit electoral commission. It contains no statutory codification of triggers for language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. The section is procedurally narrow and does not engage with the criterion's subject matter.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 14 of WahlPrüfG addresses post-election challenges to a deputy's eligibility (Einspruch gegen die Gültigkeit der Wahl) based on doubts about eligibility at the time of voting. It contains no provisions regarding language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. The criterion concerns electoral access procedures for language assistance; this section concerns electoral dispute resolution and has no relevance to the criterion.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 25B addresses early voting by mail, application procedures, and disability accommodations, but contains no language regarding language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. The criterion requires statutory codification of triggers for language assistance; this section does not engage that topic at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 26 of LGIPE addresses electoral organization, municipal governance, gender parity requirements, and indigenous/afromexicano representation rights, but contains no provision establishing triggers, thresholds, or procedures for language assistance or bilingual ballots. The section does not codify any language-assistance rules, enumerated population thresholds, or cure/appeal procedures related to language access.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

The statute invokes the Voting Rights Act Language Assistance Amendments of 1992 as the trigger for language assistance, but does not independently codify the specific thresholds, population triggers, or enumerated languages in Nebraska statute itself. The triggering mechanism is delegated to federal law rather than established in state statute. This delegation to external law does not satisfy the criterion's requirement that triggers be 'codified in statute.'

“The ballots shall be printed in English and in any other language required pursuant to the Voting Rights Act Language Assistance Amendments of 1992.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute mandates bilingual assistance (English and Spanish) and oral assistance for unwritten minority languages, but does not codify a specific numerical or percentage threshold that triggers when language assistance becomes mandatory. The criterion asks whether triggers or thresholds are codified in statute; this section provides a blanket mandate for Spanish but does not enumerate the threshold(s) that govern when other language assistance is required.

“All registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance or other information relating to the electoral process shall be printed in both English and Spanish.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 54 of the DPRK Constitution concerns the state's protection and promotion of Pyongyang cultural language in social life. It contains no language regarding electoral procedure, voter assistance, ballot provision, language-minority thresholds, or any mechanism for determining when language assistance triggers. The section is entirely unrelated to electoral access or voting procedure.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 1327 codifies voter-registration application form contents; not multilingual ballot triggers.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 35 of the Polish Constitution protects the cultural and linguistic rights of national and ethnic minorities in general terms, but it does not codify specific triggers, thresholds, or procedures for language assistance in voting (such as bilingual ballots or population thresholds). The article is a rights declaration rather than an operational electoral procedure. The actual statutory requirements for voter language assistance in Polish elections would be found in electoral codes (e.g., the Electoral Code—Kodeks Wyborczy) or implementing regulations, not in this constitutional provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 106.º-J concerns the general tabulation and consolidation of election results for overseas Portuguese voters and the composition of review assemblies. It does not address language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. This section has no bearing on the criterion's topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constituția Art. 4 codifies unity of people without distinction by language; general non-discrimination, not specific multilingual ballot triggers.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 2820 Article 81 explicitly PROHIBITS parties from claiming linguistic minorities exist or from protecting/developing/spreading languages other than Turkish. Combined with Anayasa Article 3 (Turkish is the sole official language), no language-assistance framework exists for voters.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The statute requires language assistance materials be made available, but leaves the trigger for when such assistance is mandatory entirely to the returning officer's discretion ('such information as he thinks appropriate'). No statutory threshold, population-percentage trigger, or enumerated conditions are specified that would require language assistance; the decision is delegated to administrative judgment rather than being codified in statute.

“The returning officer must also issue to those entitled to vote by post such information as he thinks appropriate about how to obtain— a translations into languages other than English of any directions to or guidance for voters sent with the ballot paper; b a translation into Braille of such directions or guidance; c graphical representations of such directions or guidance; d the directions or guidance in any other form (including any audible form).”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.92.030 addresses violations of redistricting law based on polarized voting and unequal opportunity to elect; it contains no codified triggers, thresholds, or procedures for language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population requirements. This section is not about voter assistance or language access procedures.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 5.15 codifies municipality ward divisions — not language-assistance triggers. Wisconsin's language-minority provisions (HAVA implementation) aren't FTS-surfaced.

No matching sections in corpus.