Multilingual ballot requirement

C.R.S. § 1-5-905 directly codifies multilingual ballot triggers in statute through two explicit population thresholds: (1) at least 2,000 English-less-than-very-well speakers of a shared minority language age 18+, or (2) at least 2.5% of the county's 18+ population meeting the same language criterion. The statute also specifies the data source (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey), designates the Secretary of State to make determinations, requires notification to county clerks by January 5 of even-numbered years, and mandates public posting of affected counties. This fully satisfies the criterion's requirement that triggers be set by statute with specific population thresholds and language-minority criteria.

Connecticut Statute § 9-368l establishes explicit statutory triggers for multilingual ballot and voter assistance materials. The statute codifies quantifiable thresholds: (1) a 2% threshold of voting-age citizens who speak a non-English language and are limited English proficient, or (2) an absolute threshold of 4,000 or more citizens of voting age meeting that criterion. These are precise, enumerated criteria based on census data or comparable governmental data. The statute mandates that the Secretary of the State 'shall designate' languages when these conditions are met, creating a clear, codified trigger mechanism. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement that triggers for multilingual ballots be 'set by statute' through 'population thresholds, language-minority criteria.'

§ 101.151 specifications for ballots; combined with § 101.2515 (which is in ASSIST.1) codifies the multilingual ballot requirement for VRA covered counties.

“Polling place”

La. R.S. 18:1306(B)(1) explicitly codifies a multilingual ballot trigger in statute. The criterion is satisfied because the law establishes a specific, measurable threshold (literate linguistic minority equal to more than 5% of total parish population) that mandates the provision of ballots, instructions, and certificates in minority languages. The trigger identifies both the standard (5% threshold) and the responsible parties (court, registrar, secretary of state, or other competent authority) who make the determination. This meets the EVCI requirement that multilingual notice triggers be codified in statute.

§ 204B.295 codifies a multilingual-ballot mandate: the Secretary of State or county auditor must develop voting instructions and sample ballots in non-English languages, with the SoS required to prepare instructions 'in the three most commonly spoken non-English languages in the state as determined by the state demographer.' Explicit multilingual framework codified.

“the secretary of state must prepare voting instructions and make the instructions available in polling places in the three most commonly spoken non-English languages in the state”

This section codifies a multilingual notice trigger by explicitly requiring sample ballots to be printed in English and 'any other language required pursuant to the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992.' While the statute delegates the specific determination of which languages are required to the federal Voting Rights Language Assistance Act (which uses census-based population thresholds), Nebraska has statutorily embedded this trigger mechanism into its own code. The section satisfies the criterion because it establishes a clear, codified rule that multilingual materials must be provided when federal law (which has enumerated thresholds) mandates them. This is a permissible approach—delegating to federal statute while codifying the requirement itself.

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

The statute codifies a specific, measurable trigger for multilingual ballot materials: a 10% or greater threshold of registered voters in a district whose primary language is Spanish. This trigger is enumerated in the statute itself and establishes both the population criterion (10% or more) and the language-minority criteria (primary language designation). The statute mandates that bilingual sample ballots be prepared and mailed when this threshold is met, making the multilingual notice trigger clearly codified in law.

“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”

NMSA 1978, § 1-2-3(B) and (C) establish statutory triggers for multilingual voter materials. Subsection (B) codifies a blanket requirement for English and Spanish for all registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, and electoral process information. Subsection (C) codifies an additional trigger for historically unwritten minority languages, requiring oral availability through media, public meetings, and at polls. These provisions establish clear statutory triggers (universal Spanish requirement plus language-minority oral provisions) that dictate when multilingual materials must be provided, satisfying the criterion's requirement that triggers be 'set by statute.'

§ 17-208 (NY VRA) codifies the multilingual-ballot trigger thresholds (>2% / >=300 individuals LEP for a language minority, or >4,000 LEP citizens, or >2% of Native American voting-age population on a reservation). § 3-506 codifies Russian-language voting materials for certain board jurisdictions. Comprehensive multilingual statutory framework.

“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.”

ORS § 251.167 clearly establishes statutorily-codified triggers for multilingual voter materials (voters' pamphlets). The statute specifies a concrete population threshold of 300 or more speakers for mandatory translation into identified languages, identifies the languages themselves through a data-driven methodology (American Community Survey, Population Research Center estimates), requires updates every five years, mandates translations into the five most commonly spoken state languages and the ten most commonly spoken county languages, and includes a fallback provision for counties with no language reaching the 300-speaker threshold (translation into the single most commonly spoken non-English language). These triggers are binding on the Secretary of State and are enumerated with specificity regarding both population criteria and language-minority identification mechanisms.

Rhode Island Gen. Laws § 17-19-54 explicitly codifies multilingual notice triggers by statute. The section establishes two clear population-threshold triggers: (1) more than 5% of voting-age citizens in a language minority who are limited-English proficient, OR (2) more than 10,000 such citizens; PLUS a literacy criterion (illiteracy rate higher than national rate). These thresholds reference the U.S. Census Director's determination and track the Voting Rights Act § 203. The statute then mandates that any registration, voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, materials, and ballots must be provided in both the minority language and English when a jurisdiction meets these triggers. The requirement explicitly applies to ballots. This satisfies the criterion because the multilingual ballot trigger is codified by statute with enumerated population thresholds and language-minority criteria.

“Whenever a city or town subject to the provisions of subsection (a) of this section provides any registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots, it shall provide them in the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the English language.”

§ 272.002 codifies a statutory multilingual-ballot trigger: 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, and § 272.006 codifies the separate-translation alternative. Population-threshold trigger codified.

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

52 USC § 10503 (Voting Rights Act bilingual provisions) codifies the multilingual ballot trigger: covered States/political subdivisions are determined 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.

“Before August 6, 2032, no covered State or political subdivision shall provide voting materials only in the English language”

This statute explicitly codifies in Virginia law the triggers for multilingual voting and election materials. It establishes three distinct population-based thresholds (5% single language minority, 10,000+ single language minority, or 5% American Indian language minority in Indian reservations) using objective census data. It defines "voting or election materials" to include ballots, sample ballots, voter information pamphlets, and registration notices. The statute directly ties the requirement to provide materials in the minority language to these statutorily-defined triggers, satisfying the criterion that multilingual notice triggers be codified in statute.

“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. Whenever a covered locality provides any voting or election materials, it shall provide such materials in the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the English language.”

Article 116 addresses multilingual ballot content specifically regarding party sigles (names/logos), permitting them to be in one language, translated to another, or in both languages. However, this section does NOT establish statutory triggers for when multilingual ballots and voter materials are REQUIRED based on population thresholds or language-minority criteria. The provision describes FORMAT options for sigles but lacks population-based or language-minority-based triggers that would mandate multilingual balloting. To fully satisfy INFO.2, the statute would need to specify conditions (e.g., 'ballots shall be provided in language X when Y% of residents speak that language' or similar threshold-based requirements). The text permits multilingual content but does not codify triggers for mandatory multilingual communication.

The statute requires multilingual materials (Olelo Hawaii and languages under the Voting Rights Act) but does NOT codify the triggers for when multilingual materials must be provided. The criterion requires that 'triggers for multilingual ballots and voter materials [be] set by statute (population thresholds, language-minority criteria).' This section delegates the trigger determination to the federal Voting Rights Act and to the office of elections ('as specified by the office of elections'), rather than establishing statutory thresholds or criteria. The statute mandates translation but outsources the decision of which languages and when to translate to federal law and administrative discretion, not to statutory codification of clear triggers.

“Translate the explanation into Olelo Hawaii and any other languages required under the federal Voting Rights Act, as specified by the office of elections”

The statute addresses multilingual sample ballots but does not codify triggers or mandatory requirements. It grants discretionary authority to the secretary of state ('may develop') without establishing statutory thresholds, population criteria, or language-minority triggers that would mandate multilingual materials. The criterion requires triggers set by statute; this section merely permits discretionary development without substantive procedural clarity on when multilingual ballots must be provided. The language is permissive rather than prescriptive.

“The secretary of state may develop multilingual sample ballots to be made available to election authorities.”

NRS § 293.122 defines 'voting materials' to include materials that may be translated under regulations adopted by the Secretary of State (NRS 293.46875), but this definition section does not itself codify the triggers for multilingual ballots. The criterion requires that 'triggers for multilingual ballots and voter materials' be 'set by statute' (population thresholds, language-minority criteria). This section references external regulations and another statute (293.46875) rather than enumerating the triggers within the statute itself. To fully satisfy the criterion, the statutory language would need to directly state the population or language-minority thresholds that trigger multilingual requirements, not defer to regulatory adoption. The section demonstrates awareness of multilingual obligations but lacks the direct statutory codification of triggering criteria.

The section establishes that voters must receive information about accessing multilingual materials (translations into languages other than English, Braille, graphical representations, and other forms). However, the triggering mechanism relies on discretionary language ('such information as he thinks appropriate') rather than statutory triggers such as population thresholds or language-minority criteria. The statute requires notification of availability of multilingual options but does not codify specific conditions under which jurisdictions must provide them or to which populations. This satisfies part of the criterion—the procedural requirement to communicate about multilingual availability—but fails to establish statutory triggers for when such materials must be created or distributed.

“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.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The provided section of the Código Electoral Nacional (Ley 19.945), Título III covers ballot approval procedures (art. 64), electoral campaign regulations (arts. 64 bis through 64 nonies), timing of campaigns, media advertising restrictions, government publicity rules, and mandatory presidential debates. While article 64 addresses ballot approval and requires that ballot models be distinguishable 'even for illiterate voters' ("aun para los electores analfabetos"), this language addresses visual clarity and accessibility for non-readers rather than multilingual ballot requirements. The section contains no codified triggers based on population thresholds, language-minority population percentages, or statutory criteria that would mandate multilingual ballots or voter materials in specific languages. The criterion specifically requires triggers set by statute; clarity for illiterate voters does not satisfy the multilingual requirement.

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 182 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is an interpretive provision defining terms used in Part XV (Postal voting), specifically 'Register' and references to Divisions for enrolled and provisionally enrolled persons. It contains no language addressing multilingual ballot requirements, triggers, thresholds, or voter material translation standards. The section is purely definitional and administrative in nature, establishing terminology for postal voting procedures rather than establishing any statutory framework for multilingual communication. To satisfy INFO.2, the section would need to codify specific population thresholds, language-minority criteria, or statutory triggers requiring multilingual ballots or materials. This section does neither.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This constitutional provision (Art. 22) allocates exclusive legislative competence to the federal Union over electoral law (direito eleitoral) in Item I. It establishes *which level of government* may legislate on elections, but does not itself codify substantive election procedures, including triggers for multilingual ballots or voter materials. The section is a competence-allocation clause, not a substantive codification of multilingual ballot requirements, population thresholds, or language-minority criteria. To satisfy criterion INFO.2, the statute or constitution would need to enumerate specific triggers (e.g., language-minority population percentages, census thresholds, or procedural rules mandating multilingual materials). This provision merely grants the Union the authority to legislate such matters; it does not set the triggers themselves.

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 325.1 of the Canada Elections Act addresses digital advertising disclosure requirements on online platforms and does not contain any provisions regarding multilingual ballot requirements, language-minority population thresholds, or statutory triggers for multilingual voter materials. The section mandates registries of partisan and election advertising messages on high-traffic platforms but contains no content about ballot design, ballot language accessibility, or the statutory framework for determining when multilingual ballots must be provided to voters. This section is procedurally focused on advertising transparency rather than on ballot communication or voter material accessibility in multiple languages.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 86 of the Croatian Parliamentary Elections Act addresses the procedural requirements for electoral boards to record voting results in their minutes (protocol). The section specifies what information must be documented: voter numbers, votes cast, votes by electoral unit, votes received by each list and candidate, votes for national minority representatives, and invalid ballots. It also grants all board members the right to copies of the protocol. This section is entirely procedural in nature, focusing on post-voting documentation and recording requirements. It contains no provisions regarding multilingual ballots, multilingual voter materials, language-minority triggers, population thresholds, or any statutory framework for determining when materials must be translated or provided in minority languages. The criterion requires statutory codification of triggers for multilingual ballots and voter materials. This section does not address that dimension at all.

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 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 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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 15 of Cap. 544 addresses registration of political party descriptions (names and acronyms) on nomination and ballot papers, along with criteria for rejection (confusion, obscenity, etc.). However, it does not address multilingual ballot requirements or establish any triggers for multilingual materials based on population thresholds or language-minority criteria. The provision permits parties to register descriptions 'in that language or languages that the party chooses,' but this is optional party choice rather than a statutory mandate or trigger mechanism for multilingual ballots. The statute does not codify population thresholds, language-minority identification criteria, or rules requiring jurisdictional provision of multilingual voter materials. The section is concerned solely with party description registration policy, not with the procedural clarity framework for triggering or implementing multilingual election communications to voters.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 25B addresses early voting procedures, application requirements, and accessibility accommodations for voters with disabilities. It does not establish statutory triggers for multilingual ballots or voter materials, nor does it set population thresholds or language-minority criteria that would mandate multilingual voting materials. The section focuses entirely on procedural mechanisms for early voting (application deadlines, electronic submissions, disability accommodations) rather than language accessibility requirements. While the statute may address multilingual requirements elsewhere in M.G.L. c. 54 or in federal law (Voting Rights Act), this particular section contains no codified triggers or criteria for multilingual ballot provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 26 of LGIPE addresses the structural composition of electoral bodies, gender parity in candidacies, and indigenous/afromexican representation rights. It does not contain statutory triggers, population thresholds, or language-minority criteria for multilingual ballot or voter material requirements. The section focuses on organizational structure and candidate registration principles rather than procedural rules governing multilingual communication. No codified multilingual notice triggers are present in this text.

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The provided text is from the Wfpp (Wet financiering politieke partijen – Law on Financing of Political Parties), which concerns political party financing regulations. The section consists entirely of enacting formulas, administrative metadata, and procedural instructions for publication and version management. It contains no substantive provisions regarding multilingual ballot requirements, language-minority thresholds, or triggers for providing voter materials in multiple languages. The criterion asks whether triggers for multilingual ballots and voter materials are set by statute; this text does not address those topics at all. It is administrative boilerplate rather than substantive election communication procedure.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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 governs the form/content of voter registration applications; not multilingual ballot triggers.

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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Article 3 — rule of law general clause. Not multilingual-ballot requirement.

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 the existence of linguistic minorities or from protecting/developing/spreading non-Turkish languages. Combined with Anayasa Article 3 (Turkish is the sole official language), no multilingual-ballot framework exists — bilingual triggers are not codified because the underlying premise (recognition of language minorities) is constitutionally barred.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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 voting rights protections and dilution analysis under the Voting Rights Act, specifically establishing violation standards and factors courts must consider in determining whether a political subdivision has violated voting rights protections for protected classes. The section does not contain any provisions regarding multilingual ballot requirements, triggers for multilingual voter materials, language-minority population thresholds, or language-access voting procedures. The statute concerns litigation standards and burden of proof in voting rights cases, not the procedural communication framework for multilingual ballots and materials that INFO.2 criterion measures. For the INFO.2 criterion to be satisfied, the statute would need to codify specific statutory triggers (such as census-based population percentages or language-minority thresholds) that mandate when multilingual ballots and voter materials must be provided.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.