This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-75 
entitled 'U.S. Department Of Justice: Information on Employment 
Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special 
Litigation Sections’ Enforcement Efforts from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007' which was released on December 3, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

October 2009: 

U.S. Department Of Justice: 

Information on Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, 
Voting, and Special Litigation Sections’ Enforcement Efforts from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

GAO-10-75: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-75, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Civil Rights Division (Division) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
is the primary federal entity charged with enforcing federal statutes 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, 
religion, and national origin. GAO was asked to review the Division’s 
enforcement efforts. This report addresses the activities the Division 
undertook from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 to implement its 
enforcement responsibilities through four of its sections (1) 
Employment Litigation, (2) Housing and Civil Enforcement, (3) Voting, 
and (4) Special Litigation. To conduct our review, GAO analyzed data on 
cases filed in court and matters (e.g., a referral or allegation of 
discrimination) investigated. To supplement this analysis, GAO also 
reviewed a sample of closed matter files (about 210 of 5,400). GAO 
randomly selected matters investigated under different statutes for 
each section and considered the government role (e.g., plaintiff or 
defendant) and type of issues investigated (e.g., the nature of the 
alleged discrimination or violation) to ensure that the sample 
reflected the breadth of the work and practices of each section. While 
not representative of all closed matters, the sample results provided 
examples of why matters were closed. Additionally, GAO analyzed 
complaints and other relevant court documents for a comparable number 
of cases filed as plaintiff by each section, as well as DOJ documents, 
such as annual reports, that described the Division’s enforcement 
efforts. 

What GAO Found: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Employment Litigation Section 
initiated more than 3,200 matters and filed 60 cases as plaintiff under 
federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. About 90 
percent of the matters initiated (2,846 of 3,212) and more than half of 
the cases filed (33 of 60) involved individual claims of 
discrimination. Of these cases, more than half (18 of 33) alleged sex 
discrimination against women. The Section filed 11 pattern or practice 
cases—cases that attempt to show that the defendant systematically 
engaged in discriminatory activities. Nine of these cases involved 
claims of discrimination in hiring, and the most common protected class 
(i.e., class of individuals entitled to statutory protection against 
discrimination, such as national origin or gender) was race (7 of 11). 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section initiated 947 matters and participated in 277 cases under 
federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in housing, credit 
transactions, and certain places of public accommodation (e.g., 
hotels). Nearly 90 percent (456 of 517) of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) 
matters were initiated under its pattern or practice authority. The 
largest number of the FHA matters involved allegations of 
discrimination based on race (228) or disability (206). The majority 
(250 of 269) of the cases that the Section filed as plaintiff included 
a claim under the FHA and primarily involving rental issues (146 of 
250). Most of the cases alleged discrimination on the basis of 
disability (115) or race (70). 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 442 
matters and filed 56 cases to enforce federal statutes that protect the 
voting rights of racial and language minorities, disabled and 
illiterate persons, and overseas and military personnel and addressed 
such issues as discriminatory voter registration practices. The Section 
initiated most matters (367 of 442) and filed a majority of cases (39 
of 56) as plaintiff under the Voting Rights Act. These matters (246 of 
367) and cases (30 of 39) were primarily filed on behalf of language 
minority groups. The Section spent about 52 percent of its time on 
reviews of proposed changes in voting procedures (e.g., moving a 
polling place) submitted by certain jurisdictions covered under the 
act, as compared with cases (about 33 percent) or matters (about 14 
percent). 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section 
initiated 693 matters and filed 31 cases as plaintiff to enforce 
federal civil rights statutes in four areas––institutional conditions 
(e.g., protecting persons in nursing homes or jails), conduct of law 
enforcement agencies (e.g., police misconduct), access to reproductive 
health facilities and places of worship, and the exercise of religious 
freedom of institutionalized persons. Of the matters initiated and 
closed (544 of 693), the largest numbers involved institutional 
conditions (373) and conduct of law enforcement agencies (129). The 
cases filed (27 of 31) primarily involved institutional conditions. 

DOJ provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-75] or key 
components. For more information, contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 
512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Results-in-Brief: 

The Employment Litigation Section Investigated More Matters and 
Participated in More Individual Employment Discrimination Cases under 
Section 706 of Title VII Than under Other Statutory Provisions, and 
Devoted Most of Its Time Spent on Cases to Pattern or Practice Cases: 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Initiated More Matters and 
Participated in More Cases Involving a Pattern or Practice of 
Discrimination under the Fair Housing Act Than Any Other Statute or 
Type of Matter or Case: 

The Voting Section Initiated Matters and Filed Cases Primarily under 
the Voting Rights Act on Behalf of Language Minority Groups, and 
Devoted the Greatest Proportion of Its Time to Reviews of Changes in 
Voting Practices and Procedures: 

The Special Litigation Section Primarily Investigated Matters and 
Participated in Cases Involving Institutional Conditions and Devoted 
the Greatest Percentage of Time to these Matters and Cases, as Compared 
with Its Other Areas of Responsibility: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Additional Information on the Employment Litigation 
Section: 

Appendix III: Additional Information on the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section: 

Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section: 

Appendix V: Special Litigation Section: 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, 
and Special Litigation Sections’ Available Permanent Positions and 
Salaries and Expenses from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 2: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Employment Litigation 
Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 3: Matters the Employment Litigation Section Initiated by Statute 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 4: Reasons for Closing Matters: 

Table 5: Cases the Employment Litigation Section Initiated by Statute 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 6: Section 706 Cases Initiated by Subject and Protected Class 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 7: Section 707 Pattern or Practice Cases Initiated by Subject 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 8: USERRA Cases Initiated by Subject from Fiscal Years 2005 
through 2007: 

Table 9: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 10: Matters the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Initiated 
by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 11: Bases of Allegations for the FHA Matters Initiated from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 12: Issues in the FHA Matters Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

Table 13: Basis of Allegations for ECOA Matters from Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

Table 14: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases by Statute and 
Fiscal Year Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 15: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Case Types for Cases 
Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 16: Issues in the FHA Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

Table 17: Bases of Claims for the FHA Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2007: 

Table 18: Bases of Claims and Issues for Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section Testing Program Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

Table 19: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Voting Section from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 20: Matters Initiated by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2007 by Statute: 

Table 21: Matters Initiated On Behalf 0f Language Minorities from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 22: Section 2 Matters Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007 by Protected Class: ; 

Table 23: Matters Initiated by the Voting Section under VRA Section 2 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Subject: 

Table 24: Voting Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by 
Statute: 

Table 25: VRA Section 2 Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 
by Protected Class: 

Table 26: Number of Section 5 Submissions and Changes Received by the 
Voting Section during Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 27: Number of Objections to Section 5 Changes Proposed from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 28: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Cases, 
Matters, and Section 5 Reviews from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 29: Percentage of Time Reported Spent on Section 5 Reviews from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year: 

Table 30: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Special Litigation 
Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 31: Matters Initiated by the Special Litigation Section from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year: 

Table 32: Number of Matters Initiated Involving Institutional 
Conditions from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Category and Facility 
Type: 

Table 33: Cases Filed by Special Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2007 by Area of Responsibility: 

Table 34: Cases Involving Institutional Conditions by Category, 
Facility Type, and Fiscal Year: 

Table 35: Percentage of Hours Reported for Matters by Facility Type and 
Fiscal Year: 

Table 36: Percentage of Hours Reported for Cases by Area of 
Responsibility and Fiscal Year: 

Table 37: Number of Right-to-Sue Letters Issued by the Employment 
Litigation Section: 

Table 38: Summary of Section 707 Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

Table 39: Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 2001 That Were Still Open 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 40: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation Section 
Matters by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 41: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation Section 
Cases by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 42: Number of On-board Staff for the Employment Litigation 
Section by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Table 43: Percentage of Attrition for the Employment Litigation Section 
by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Table 44: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of Time 
Charged to Matters by Statute for Fiscal Years 2001-2007: 

Table 45: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of Time 
Charged by Case Type for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 46: Cases Remaining Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by 
Statute and Government Role: 

Table 47: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Historical Track of 
Available Resources (dollars in thousands): 

Table 48: Number of On-board Staff for Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Table 49: Percentage of Attrition for Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Table 50: Voting Section Plaintiff Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Statute: 

Table 51: Cases Filed under the Voting Rights Act Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Subject: 

Table 52: Cases Filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Prior to 
Fiscal Year 2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by 
Protected class: 

Table 53: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Matters from 
Fiscal Year 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year: 

Table 54: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Cases from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year: 

Table 55: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Plaintiff 
Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year: 

Table 56: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Defendant 
Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year: 

Table 57: Voting Section: Historical Track of Available Resources: 

Table 58: Number of On-board Staff for Voting Section by Position and 
Fiscal Year: 

Table 59: Percentage of Attrition for Voting Section by Position and 
Fiscal Year: 

Table 60: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001 by Facility Type: 

Table 61: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001, by Government Role and Facility Type: 

Table 62: Percentage of Hours Spent on Matters by Facility Type and 
Fiscal Year: 

Table 63: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on 
Institutional Conditions Matters, by Facility Type and Fiscal Year: 

Table 64: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on 
Cases, by Area of Responsibility and Fiscal Year: 

Table 65: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on 
Institutional Conditions Cases by Facility Type and Fiscal Year: 

Table 66: Special Litigation Section: Historical Track of Available 
Resources: 

Table 67: Number of On-board Staff for Special Litigation Section by 
Position and Fiscal Year: 

Table 68: Percentage of Attrition for Special Litigation Section by 
Position and Fiscal Year: 

Table 69: Special Litigation Section Subject Values for Matters and 
Cases Recorded in ICM: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: HUD Referrals from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Figure 2: Housing Testing Conducted from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

Figure 3: Language Minority Matters Compared with All Matters Initiated 
by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Figure 4: Number of VRA Section 2 Matters Filed by the Voting Section 
for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Figure 5: Matters Initiated and Closed by the Special Litigation 
Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Area of Responsibility: 

Abbreviations: 

AAG: Assistant Attorney General: 

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act: 

CRIPA: Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DOL: Department of Labor: 

ECOA: Equal Credit Opportunity Act: 

EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 

FACE: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act: 

FDIC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: 

FHA: Fair Housing Act: 

FHAP: Fair Housing Assistance Program: 

HAVA: Help America Vote Act of 2002: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 

ICM: Interactive Case Management System: 

IT: information technology: 

NVRA: National Voter Registration Act: 

PROMPT: Proactive Recruitment of Multicultural Professionals for 
Tomorrow: 

RLUIPA: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: 

SCRA: Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: 

STAPS: Submission Tracking and Processing System: 

UOCAVA: Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: 

USERRA: Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 
1994: 

VRA: Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended: 

14141: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: 

October 23, 2009: 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Chairman:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: 
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt:
House of Representatives: 

Established after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the 
Civil Rights Division (Division) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is 
the primary federal entity charged with the responsibility of enforcing 
federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 
disability, religion, and national origin. Since its establishment, the 
Division's mission has expanded to include the enforcement of laws 
prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, voting, public 
accommodations, education, and the rights of institutionalized persons. 
To carry out these broad enforcement responsibilities, the Division 
initiates thousands of matters and hundreds of cases each year. 
[Footnote 1] In hearings as recent as 2008, members of Congress raised 
issues about how the Division carried out its enforcement 
responsibilities from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Specifically, 
these hearings included testimony on the work of 4 of the Division's 11 
sections--Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, 
and Special Litigation--over the 7-year period.[Footnote 2] During 
these hearings, members raised issues about the sections' activities, 
including how they determined which matters to investigate and which 
cases to pursue in federal court in the areas of employment, housing, 
and voting discrimination. Additionally, members also raised issues 
about actions undertaken to protect individuals confined in certain 
institutions operated by, or on behalf of, state or local governments 
(e.g., mental health facilities, nursing homes, jails and prisons, and 
juvenile correctional facilities); efforts to enforce laws prohibiting 
religious discrimination; and actions taken to investigate allegations 
of police misconduct (e.g., excessive use of force).[Footnote 3] 

In the past, we have done work on the Division and its enforcement 
activities. In September 2000, we reported on the reasons that the 
Division's Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and 
Voting sections pursued a selection of cases and closed a selection of 
matters.[Footnote 4] According to Section managers, legal merit (i.e., 
the strength of evidence in a case) was the predominant reason in their 
decisions to pursue allegations of discrimination as cases by filing 
complaints in federal court. We reported that the reasons generally 
given for closing a matter were a lack of merit (e.g., insufficient 
evidence to support allegations), no further action was warranted 
(e.g., the problem was resolved), the matter was returned to the 
referring federal agency for administrative resolution by that agency, 
or corrective action was taken by the jurisdiction investigated. In 
addition, in February and September 2000, we reported on how the 
Division tracked and managed matters and cases using its Case 
Management System, including the limitations of that system. We also 
described the new Interactive Case Management System (ICM) that the 
Division was implementing at the time of our review to replace the Case 
Management System.[Footnote 5] As the Division's official case 
management system, ICM was to track, count, and measure all matters and 
cases from their inception to conclusion. You asked us to review the 
enforcement efforts of the Division's Employment Litigation, Housing 
and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation sections from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Accordingly, this report addresses the 
following question for each of the four sections: From fiscal years 
2001 through 2007, what activities did the Division undertake to 
implement its enforcement responsibilities through its (1) Employment 
Litigation Section, (2) Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, (3) 
Voting Section, and (4) Special Litigation Section? 

To address our objective for each of the four sections, we analyzed 
electronic data from ICM on the cases pursued and matters initiated by 
each section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. As part of this 
analysis, we took actions to assess the reliability of the ICM data to 
ensure they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of these 
objectives. Those actions included ascertaining if, and to what extent, 
data were missing in the information provided; determining the 
consistency of the data by comparing data in related fields; comparing 
the ICM data with matter and case file documents to identify any 
differences between the electronic and file information, as described 
below; and discussing any anomalies or instances of missing data with 
appropriate agency officials to identify possible data entry errors. As 
appropriate, we made corrections to the data or used the data in 
conjunction with other sources. We found the data to be sufficiently 
reliable for presenting overall trends in the sections' enforcement 
efforts. Limitations in the data that we identified are noted later in 
this report. 

To supplement our analysis of the ICM matter data and further assess 
the reliability of these data, we compared ICM data with documents 
(e.g., memoranda and correspondence) in matter files for a 
nongeneralizable sample of closed matters--matters that were concluded--
for each of the four sections.[Footnote 6] Specifically, we reviewed 49 
of about 3,300 closed matters for the Employment Litigation Section; 60 
of about 1070 closed matters for the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section; 51 of about 345 closed matters for the Voting Section; and 51 
of about 714 closed matters for the Special Litigation Section. In 
determining our samples, we randomly selected matters investigated 
under each of the statutes enforced by the respective section and took 
into consideration the government role (e.g., plaintiff or defendant) 
and the subject investigated (e.g., the nature of the alleged 
discrimination or violation) to ensure that the sample reflected the 
breadth of the work and practices of the respective section from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007. Because our samples were not representative, 
we were unable to generalize the results to all closed matters 
investigated by these sections during the period of our review. 
Nevertheless, our file reviews provided examples of how the matter data 
in ICM compared to the same information in the matter files, how the 
sections investigated matters, and why the sections closed them. 

Additionally, to supplement our analysis of the ICM case data of each 
section, as well as our assessment of the reliability of these data, we 
analyzed complaints for a comparable number of cases filed in court by 
each of the four sections. Specifically, we analyzed 60 complaints from 
the Employment Litigation Section, 56 complaints from the Voting 
Section, and 31 complaints from the Special Litigation Section, which 
constituted all of the complaints that each of those sections filed 
during the time period of our review. Given the large number (277) of 
complaints filed by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section during 
the 7-year period, we analyzed case documents for a nongeneralizable 
sample of 33 cases identified in the ICM data. In selecting the sample 
of Housing and Civil Enforcement Section cases to review, we randomly 
chose cases that involved each of the statutes enforced by the Section, 
and considered other case characteristics, such as the fiscal year in 
which the case was filed in court. For all four sections, we compared 
the information in the complaints to data contained in ICM (e.g., the 
statutes under which the complaints were filed) to identify possible 
data entry errors. Although the information we obtained cannot be 
generalized to all cases filed by the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section during the period of our review, it provided us with 
information on how the case data in ICM compared to the same 
information in the case files and illustrative examples of the types of 
cases pursued by this Section. 

In addition to the closed matter data, we also analyzed aggregate 
matter data for matters initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 
by each of the four sections in our review. The Division also provided 
aggregate data for the time each of the four Sections reported spending 
on matters and cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

We also analyzed DOJ documents, such as annual reports, hearing 
statements, speeches, and budget documents, that described the 
Division's enforcement efforts (including special initiatives and areas 
of focus) from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. We interviewed DOJ 
headquarters, Division, and Section officials to obtain information on 
four sections' enforcement efforts during the 7-year period. 
Furthermore, to identify issues and gain additional perspective on the 
sections' litigation efforts, we interviewed representatives of three 
nongovernmental civil rights organizations and five experts on the four 
civil rights areas covered in our review. We identified these 
individuals in part through our review of the transcripts from 
oversight hearings in which these individuals had testified. Although 
the information we obtained was not generalizable beyond the 
individuals we interviewed, these interviews helped enhance our 
analysis of the litigation efforts and other activities of the four 
sections during the period of our review. 

We conducted our work from June 2007 through October 2009 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. 
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions 
in this product. Additional details on our scope and methodology are 
contained in appendix I. 

Background: 

History of the Division and Some of the Major Statutes Enforced: 

The Division was established within DOJ as a result of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1957[Footnote 7] to enforce all federal statutes affecting civil 
rights. The act provided DOJ with new tools to prosecute racial 
inequality and political disenfranchisement. The act focused 
specifically on voting, authorizing DOJ to bring lawsuits against 
anyone who had violated or was about to violate any other person's 
voting rights--either the right to vote in federal elections or the 
right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. The act was 
followed by a series of laws that prohibited discrimination in 
employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, 
education, and certain federally funded and conducted programs. These 
laws also expanded the classes of individuals entitled to statutory 
protection from discrimination--referred to as protected classes-- 
prohibiting discrimination on bases including gender, religion, 
national origin, familial status, and disability. The following are the 
some of the goals and purposes articulated by Congress in passing the 
major civil rights statutes enforced by the four sections in our 
review. 

* The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended[Footnote 8]: 

The purpose of the Voting Rights Act, as reauthorized in 2006, is to 
ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is preserved and 
protected as guaranteed by the Constitution. Originally enacted in 
1965, the Voting Rights Act reflected Congress' intention to rid the 
country of racial discrimination in voting. 

* The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 
[Footnote 9]: 

UOCAVA was enacted in 1986 to facilitate absentee voting by United 
States citizens, both military and civilian, who are overseas, because, 
as noted in the House of Representatives report accompanying the bill, 
when they fail to receive their absentee ballots in time to vote and 
return them, they are clearly and effectively disenfranchised.[Footnote 
10] 

* National Voter Registration Act (NVRA):[Footnote 11] 

In passing the NVRA in 1993, Congress found that discriminatory and 
unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging 
effect on voter participation in federal elections and 
disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, 
including racial minorities. The NVRA was intended, in part, to 
establish procedures to increase the number of eligible citizens who 
register to vote in federal elections as well as to protect the 
integrity of the electoral process and ensure accurate and current 
voter registration rolls. 

* Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)[Footnote 12] 

HAVA was enacted after the events surrounding the November 2000 
election, at least partly in response to perceived voting 
irregularities in the State of Florida. Problems identified were 
related to voter registration lists, absentee ballots, ballot counting, 
and antiquated voting systems, among others. 

* The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, and 1968[Footnote 13] 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expanded the Division's authority to 
combat racial, ethnic, religious, and gender-based discrimination, by 
prohibiting discrimination in public facilities; employment; schools; 
and certain places of public accommodation, such as motels, 
restaurants, and theaters. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 further 
broadened the reach of the Division, addressing civil rights-related 
violence, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and the 
rights of Native Americans living on tribal reservations. 

* Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 
(USERRA)[Footnote 14] 

Following a review after the 1991 Gulf War of the effectiveness of the 
reemployment rights set forth in the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment 
Assistance Act of 1974,[Footnote 15] Congress passed USERRA. The law 
was designed, among other things, to encourage noncareer service in the 
uniformed services by eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to 
civilian careers and employment that can result from such service. 
USERRA protects individuals as they transition between their military 
duties and civilian employment. 

* Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 (CRIPA) 
[Footnote 16] 

In passing CRIPA, Congress recognized the commitment of DOJ to ensuring 
the adequate care of the Nation's institutionalized citizens, but noted 
that federal court decisions had made clear that a federal statute was 
necessary to clarify the Attorney General's authority to bring suits on 
behalf of such persons. As such, Congress passed CRIPA to give the 
Attorney General legal standing to enforce existing constitutional and 
federal statutory rights of institutionalized persons and ensure they 
are afforded the full measure of protections the Constitution 
guarantees them. 

* Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988[Footnote 17] 

Originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair 
Housing Act (FHA) was significantly amended in 1988. In passing the new 
statute, the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary 
explained its purpose as fulfilling the promise made to the American 
people in the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which was to proscribe housing 
practices that discriminate on account of race, color, national origin 
or religion, and as added later, sex.[Footnote 18] The committee noted 
that the prior act had failed to provide an effective enforcement 
system to make that promise a reality, so the new law was to fill that 
void by creating an administrative enforcement system and removing 
barriers to court action by private litigants and DOJ. The statute's 
purposes were also to extend the principle of equal housing opportunity 
to handicapped persons and families with children, all of whom had been 
the victims of unfair and discriminatory housing practices. 

* Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)[Footnote 19] 

In passing the first version of ECOA, Congress found "a need to insure 
that the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the 
extension of credit exercise their responsibility to make credit 
available with fairness, impartiality and without discrimination on the 
basis of sex or marital status."[Footnote 20] Two years later, in 1976, 
the categories of race, color, religion, national origin, and age were 
added to the law, as well as prohibitions against discrimination based 
on the receipt of public assistance benefits and the exercise of rights 
under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.[Footnote 21] 

* Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) 
[Footnote 22] 

As explained upon the bill's introduction in the Senate, RLUIPA was 
intended to protect religious liberty from unnecessary governmental 
influence and represented an attempt to respond to the Supreme Court's 
decision in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores,[Footnote 23] in which 
it had held that Congress lacked the authority to enact provisions of 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.[Footnote 24] 

* Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, included a 
provision--codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14141--which responded to judicial 
decisions that had denied both individual victims and DOJ standing to 
pursue relief for police misconduct. The law conferred standing upon 
the Attorney General to bring civil actions for prospective relief 
against governmental authorities for unconstitutional patterns or 
practices, which was a recognized gap in the federal scheme for 
protecting constitutional rights.[Footnote 25] 

Organization of the Division and Staffing Levels for the Employment 
Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Special Litigation, and 
Voting Sections: 

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Division is headed by an 
Assistant Attorney General, who reports to the Associate Attorney 
General. The Office of the Assistant Attorney General establishes 
policy and provides executive direction and control over litigative 
enforcement and administrative management activities in the 
Division.[Footnote 26] The Division has 11 sections--10 program-related 
sections and an Administrative Management section. Eight of the 10 
program sections have enforcement responsibilities over particular 
subject areas that include employment, housing, voting, criminal 
violations, education, immigrant-related discriminatory employment 
practices, disability rights, and institutional conditions. Of the 
remaining two sections, one is responsible for coordinating federal 
agencies' civil rights enforcement efforts, and the other handles 
appellate matters and provides legal guidance. Each of the enforcement 
sections, with the exception of the Office of Special Counsel, is 
headed by a section chief and has several deputy section chiefs. This 
report focuses on four of the Division's program sections: Employment 
Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special 
Litigation. 

According to the Acting Assistant Attorney General and the Division's 
budget official, changes in the Department's priorities from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007 affected the resources available to the 
sections. Specifically, officials said that the Attorney General had 
realigned resources in 2005 to reflect the increased prioritization of 
DOJ's counterterrorism efforts, which became DOJ's top strategic goal. 
As a result, the Division, like many other DOJ components, had lost 
staff since 2002. Table 1 presents the number of permanent positions 
and salaries and expenses available from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007, by fiscal year, to each of the four sections in our review. 
(Appendixes II-V provide additional information on resources available 
to each section.) 

Table 1: Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, 
and Special Litigation Sections' Available Resources for Permanent 
Positions and Salaries and Expenses from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

Employment Litigation Section: 

Permanent positions: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 62; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 62; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 62; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 62; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 61; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 61; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 61. 

Salaries and Expenses: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 6,804; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 7,515; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 7,797; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 8,056; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 8,226; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 9,279; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 9,963. 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: 

Permanent positions: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 98. 

Salaries and Expenses: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 13,295; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 13,963; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 14,278; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 14,594; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 14,342; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 13,541; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 14,168. 

Voting Section: 

Permanent positions: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 102; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 102; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 98. 

Salaries and Expenses: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 12,158; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 13,242; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 13,596; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 14,123; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 13,720; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 11,758; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 11,810. 

Special Litigation Section: 

Permanent positions 
Fiscal year: 2001: 63; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 73; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 73; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 73; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 72. 

Salaries and Expenses: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 7,500; 
Fiscal year: 2002[A]: 8,920; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]: 9,799; 
Fiscal year: 2004[C]: 10,048; 
Fiscal year: 2005[D]: 10,233; 
Fiscal year: 2006[E]: 12,096; 
Fiscal year: 2007[F]: 12,656. 

Source: Civil Rights Division: 

[A] Fiscal year 2002 includes a $95,000 rescission. 

[B] Fiscal year 2003 includes a $683,000 rescission. 

[C] Fiscal year 2004 includes a $1,158,000 rescission, partially offset 
by the restoration of the fiscal year 2003 $683, 000 rescission. 

[D] Fiscal year 2005 includes two rescissions totaling $1,458,000, and 
subsequent transfers of $228,000 (Office of Immigration and Litigation 
$95,000) and United States Attorneys ($133,000), and a reduction of 15 
positions (8 attorneys) from civil enforcement activities. 

[E] Fiscal year 2006 includes two rescissions totally $1,410,000 and a 
transfer of $443,000 to the U.S. Attorneys. 

[F] Fiscal year 2007 includes an across-the board reduction of 
$1,057,000 and a transfer of 4 positions and $576,000 to U.S. 
Attorneys. 

[End of table] 

Process for handling matters and cases: 

All four of the sections undertake investigations on behalf of 
individuals alleging a single act of discrimination against a person or 
persons as well as investigations that tend to be larger and more 
complex. This second type of investigation is referred to in the 
Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Special 
Litigation sections as a pattern or practice investigation and in the 
Voting Section as a systemic investigation. A pattern or practice case 
is one in which the plaintiff attempts to show that the defendant--such 
as an employer, provider of housing, or correctional institution--has 
systematically engaged in discriminatory or unlawful activities, 
especially by means of policies and procedures. The number of incidents 
necessary to show a pattern or practice depends upon the nature of the 
right protected and the nature of the ordinary violations of that 
right. These cases are factually and legally complex and, according to 
Division officials, time-consuming and resource-intensive. While the 
Voting Section does not have pattern or practice authority like the 
other three sections, according to Section officials, cases that the 
Voting Section initiates typically address systemic problems in the 
method of election of a given jurisdiction or other discriminatory 
voting practices. According to the Division, these cases are similar in 
scope and complexity to pattern or practice cases. 

The Division's process for handling matters and cases in the four 
sections covered in our review generally varies by section because of 
the structure of the statutes or provisions within a statute that each 
section enforces. However, each section's process shares some common 
steps. For example, all four sections receive referrals of allegations 
of discrimination from numerous sources, such as other federal 
agencies, private attorneys, Members of Congress, citizens, community 
organizations, and advocacy groups. All four sections may also initiate 
investigations as a result of information obtained from section survey 
and outreach work, demographic data, U.S. Attorney's Offices, media 
sources, and other sources of information about discrimination. 
However, the extent to which the sections have discretion to pursue 
particular matters varies by section. For example, the Employment 
Litigation section receives referrals of individual charges of 
discrimination against state and local government employers under 
section 706 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act from the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and has the discretion either to close 
the matter with a letter to the charging party (known as a right-to-sue 
letter)[Footnote 27] after reviewing the charge[Footnote 28] or 
consider the matter for possible litigation. In contrast, the Housing 
and Civil Enforcement section receives certain referrals under Fair 
Housing Act from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 
which DOJ is required by statute to file in federal district court. 
These non-discretionary referrals are called "election cases" because 
either the complaining party or the respondent has elected to have the 
case heard in federal court rather than through a HUD administrative 
hearing. The Voting Section generally does not receive referrals from 
other federal agencies and, like the other three sections, has the 
authority to initiate its own litigation. The Special Litigation 
Section has discretion under all the statutes it enforces to recommend 
or not to recommend an investigation or case; therefore, the Section 
considers all its work to be self-initiated. 

Generally, all four sections may initiate certain types of 
investigations, but for other types, they must obtain the approval of 
the Office of the Assistant Attorney General. For example, in the 
Employment Litigation Section, the Section Chief can approve opening an 
investigation on charges of discrimination that the EEOC referred to 
DOJ under section 706 of Title VII.[Footnote 29] A Deputy Section Chief 
initially reviews the referrals and brings those that have potential 
for litigation to the attention of the Section Chief. The Housing and 
Civil Enforcement Section can also initiate investigations based on 
most HUD referrals, but as of 2007 had to obtain the approval of the 
Office of the Assistant Attorney General to initiate certain 
investigations, such as allegations of religious discrimination in land 
use regulation under RLUIPA. Once a section decides to investigate a 
referral or allegation of discrimination, the section chief or attorney 
managers assigns a trial attorney to conduct the investigation. Upon 
completion of the investigation, the trial attorney makes a 
recommendation to the Deputy Section Chief or Section Chief on whether 
to file a lawsuit, close the matter, or participate in some other 
manner,[Footnote 30] and the Section Chief makes the final decision 
whether to close an investigation that has been authorized by the 
Assistant Attorney General or recommend a lawsuit or other 
participation to the Assistant Attorney General. If the Section Chief 
decides not to pursue a referral or allegation of discrimination the 
section closes the matter and notifies all appropriate parties. 
[Footnote 31] 

In all four sections, if the Section Chief decides to pursue a matter 
and recommend filing a complaint to initiate a lawsuit, then the trial 
attorney prepares a justification package.[Footnote 32] The contents of 
this package vary by section, but are to include a justification 
memorandum for pattern and practice cases. This memorandum includes the 
facts of the case, the legal argument for filing a lawsuit, and the 
proposed complaint to be filed in court alleging a violation of civil 
rights laws. Each package is reviewed and approved by an attorney 
manager and the section chief. A Deputy Assistant Attorney General then 
reviews the justification package, and forwards it to the Assistant 
Attorney General for final review and approval. Depending on the type 
of case, the section may also send the justification package to the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for the district where the lawsuit is to be 
filed for review and concurrence. Pursuant to statutory requirements, 
the Attorney General is to authorize some justification packages for 
the Special Litigation Section. 

If the Assistant Attorney General approves the justification package, 
the Division notifies the defendant by letter of DOJ's intent to file a 
lawsuit.[Footnote 33] Subsequently, the trial attorney and the 
defendant often have presuit settlement discussions.[Footnote 34] If 
they reach a presuit settlement, a settlement document stating the 
points of agreement is prepared, reviewed and approved by the Office of 
the Assistant Attorney General, and signed by all parties. The 
settlement document may be filed in the federal district court along 
with the complaint for approval by the judge. In these instances, the 
settlement document is called a consent decree. A settlement entered 
into by the Employment Litigation and Housing and Civil Enforcement 
sections is usually a consent decree. The Section or the relevant U.S. 
Attorney's Office monitors the settlement agreement for compliance, 
where appropriate. If the presuit settlement discussions do not result 
in a settlement, the section files the complaint in federal district 
court and the parties engage in litigation conducted pursuant to the 
federal rules of civil procedure and evidence. According to Section 
officials, defendants often settle prior to or during a trial. If a 
trial is held, the plaintiff or defendant can appeal the decision, and 
then the section works closely with the Division's Appellate Section, 
which assumes responsibility for the appellate stage of the case. In 
certain instances, the sections may conclude a matter without the 
filing of an approved complaint by reaching an out-of-court settlement 
agreement with the opposing party. For example, the Special Litigation 
Section may resolve a matter in this manner, but leave the matter open 
and monitor compliance with the agreement; thus, the matter never 
becomes a case, although it has been resolved by settlement between the 
two parties. 

If the Assistant Attorney General does not approve the justification 
package, the trial attorney generally prepares a closing memorandum (or 
another form of documentation) and notifies the charging party, 
respondent or referring agency, as appropriate, that DOJ is not filing 
a lawsuit. The matter is then closed. 

In pursuing investigations and cases, the four sections may play a 
number of different roles depending on the legal and factual 
circumstances. While the Division may act as a plaintiff--with the 
section representing the United States in a case whereby it brings a 
lawsuit against an individual or entity based on unlawful 
discrimination--it may also be involved in a case in other ways. A 
section may act as amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," by filing a 
brief in an action in which it is not a party, because the Division has 
a strong interest in the subject matter. The section may also intervene 
as a party in a case--either on the side of the plaintiff or the 
defendant--because the constitutionality of a federal statute has been 
questioned or it has another interest in the outcome of the case. The 
section may also participate in a case as the defendant, representing 
the United States in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs against federal 
agencies challenging the enforcement of federal laws. 

The Division's Interactive Case Management System Tracks Matters and 
Cases: 

Over the past 20 years, the Division has used various case management 
systems to manage its workload. In October 2000, the Division 
implemented the Interactive Case Management System (ICM) as its 
official system to track, count, and capture performance measurement 
information for all matters and cases from their inception to their 
conclusion and to assist staff in their case work. According to 
Division documentation, ICM was also designed to serve as a tool for 
senior management to oversee the work of the Division and to assist 
senior managers in reporting accurate matter and case data at all 
levels of the organization, improving accountability, analyzing the 
Division's performance, and responding to congressional inquiries about 
the work of the Division. Additionally, ICM was designed to capture and 
report on the level of effort that attorneys and professionals dedicate 
to investigations and case-related tasks to help Division managers 
oversee attorneys' work. 

In September 2009, as part of our work on the Division's enforcement 
efforts from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, we reported on the extent 
to which the Division had conducted and documented assessments of ICM's 
performance since its implementation in fiscal year 2001, and 
additional data the Division could collect using ICM to assist in 
reporting on its enforcement efforts.[Footnote 35] We reported that in 
accordance with DOJ guidance that encourages components to conduct 
assessments of electronic data systems at least once a year, the 
Division reported conducting annual assessments of ICM's performance 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2006; although the Division has not 
assessed the performance of ICM since fiscal year 2006 and lacks 
documentation of prior assessments. We also reported that opportunities 
exist to collect additional data that have been consistently requested 
by Congress for oversight purposes, which would improve the Division's 
use of ICM for reporting on the four sections' enforcement efforts. To 
strengthen the Division's ability to manage and report on the four 
sections' enforcement efforts, we recommended that the Acting Assistant 
Attorney General of the Division (1) conduct and respond to annual 
assessments of the performance of the Division's case management system 
and ensure that these assessments are documented and maintained so they 
can be used to improve the performance of the system; (2) require 
sections to record data on protected class and subject in the 
Division's case management system in order to facilitate reporting of 
this information to Congress; and (3) as the Division considers options 
to address its case management system needs, determine how sections 
should be required to record data on the reasons for closing matters in 
the system in order to be able to systematically assess and take 
actions to address issues identified. DOJ concurred with our 
recommendations. 

Results-in-Brief: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Employment Litigation Section 
initiated more than 3,200 matters and filed 60 cases as plaintiff under 
federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment based on 
race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and military service, and 
retaliation against a person for filing a charge of discrimination, 
participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory 
practices. About 90 percent of the more than 3,200 matters the section 
initiated (2,846 of 3,212) alleged violations of section 706 of Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act, which involve individual claims of 
discrimination. Additionally, about 96 percent of the matters (3,087 of 
3,212) initiated were as a result of section 706 referrals from the 
EEOC and the Department of Labor (USERRA).[Footnote 36] As such, much 
of the section's matters are driven by what the section receives from 
other agencies. Consequently, the number of section 706 and USERRA 
matters initiated declined in the latter fiscal years, which section 
officials attributed to a decline in referrals from EEOC and the 
Department of Labor, respectively.Because the Section did not require 
staff to maintain information in ICM on the subject of the matter, such 
as harassment and retaliation, or the protected class of the 
individuals, such as race and religion, who were allegedly 
discriminated against, we could not determine this information for over 
80 percent of the matters the section closed from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. In our September 2009 report on ICM, we recommended that 
the Division require the Sections to record data on protected class and 
subject in the Division's case management system in order to strengthen 
its ability to account for its enforcement efforts.[Footnote 37] DOJ 
concurred with our recommendation. In addition to the matters 
initiated, the section filed 60 cases in court as plaintiff from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007, and filed more than half (33 of 60) under 
section 706 of Title VII. According to Employment Litigation section 
officials, the primary reason for pursuing a case was that the case had 
legal merit, i.e., the strength of evidence in the case. The majority 
of the section's cases (18 of 33) involved sex discrimination against 
women, and one-third (11 of 33) involved claims of race discrimination, 
[Footnote 38] with six cases filed on behalf of African Americans and 
five cases filed on behalf of Whites. For example, in March 2005, the 
section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of Cairo, Illinois 
discriminated against a female employee by sexually harassing her, 
denying her a promotion, and terminating her employment because she 
refused sexual advancements from her supervisors. Most of the 11 
pattern or practice cases the Section filed during the 7-year period 
involved claims of discrimination in hiring (9 of 11) and the most 
common protected class was race (7 of 11) , with four cases filed on 
behalf of African Americans, two on behalf of Whites, and one on behalf 
of American Indians or Alaska Natives. For example, in January 2001, 
the section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Delaware State Police 
Department was discriminating against African Americans in hiring for 
trooper positions.[Footnote 39] Of the 16 USERRA cases the Section 
filed from fiscal year 2005--the year the section assumed 
responsibility for these cases--through 2007, more than half (10 of 16) 
alleged violations of reemployment rights and/or discharge under 
USERRA. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section initiated 947 matters and participated in 277 cases under 
federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in housing; credit 
transactions; and in certain places of public accommodation (e.g., 
hotels).[Footnote 40] The Section enforced provisions of the Fair 
Housing Act (FHA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the 
land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 
Persons Act (RLUIPA), among others. According to Housing Section 
officials, the Section considers legal merit when deciding whether to 
pursue a matter as a case as well as (1) whether it looks like the 
matter will be resolved locally, (2) whether litigation would resolve a 
significant statutory issue; and (3) whether the plaintiff has the 
resources to proceed on its own should the Section choose not to get 
involved. During the 7-year period, the section initiated more matters 
(517 of 947) and participated in more cases (257 of 277) involving a 
pattern or practice of discrimination under FHA than any other statute 
or type of matter or case. More than half (517 of 947) of the matters 
initiated involved an allegation under the FHA,[Footnote 41] primarily 
alleging discrimination on the basis of race or disability and 
involving land/zoning/local government or rental issues.[Footnote 42] 
For example, the section investigated a matter in which a landlord of 
an apartment complex allegedly turned away families with children or 
assigned them to a particular floor. According to Section officials, 
the large number of land/zoning/local government matters it initiated 
was due to the Section regularly receiving referrals from HUD as well 
as complaints from other entities involving these issues. Over the 7- 
year period, the section experienced a general decline of election 
matters involving an allegation under the FHA derived from HUD 
referrals, with the fewest number of total matters, 106, in fiscal year 
2007. Section officials attributed the decrease, in part, to a decline 
in referrals from HUD as a result of more complaints of housing 
discrimination being handled by state and local fair housing agencies 
instead of HUD. The majority (250 of 269) of cases that the Section 
filed in court as plaintiff involved a claim under FHA--more than half 
(132 of 250) of which involved a pattern or practice of discrimination. 
Additionally, more than half (146 of 250) of the FHA cases involved 
rental issues and nearly half (115 of 250) were brought on behalf of 
persons with a disability. For example, one of the complaints we 
reviewed was filed on behalf of a man with a disability who had filed a 
complaint with HUD against the property manager and owner of his 
apartment complex, alleging the defendants discriminated against him on 
the basis of his physical impairments when they unreasonably prolonged 
meeting his request for a ground floor apartment and did not provide 
the reasonable accommodation of handicapped parking spaces. The number 
of cases filed by the section generally decreased from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007 from 53 to 35, which section officials generally 
attributed to fewer election cases being referred from HUD. Overall, 
almost 70 percent (185 of 277) of the cases the section participated in 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 originally derived from a HUD 
referral, but declined to about 50 percent (17 of 35) of cases filed in 
fiscal year 2007. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 442 
matters and filed 56 cases to enforce federal statutes that protect the 
voting rights of racial and language minorities, disabled and 
illiterate persons, and overseas and military personnel and addressed 
such issues as discriminatory voter registration practices. It enforced 
the VRA; the NVRA; UOCAVA; and beginning in fiscal year 2002, HAVA. The 
Voting Section has the discretion to initiate a matter or pursue a case 
under all of its statutes, with the exception of the review of changes 
in voting practices or procedures, which it is statutorily required to 
conduct under section 5 of the VRA. During the 7-year period, the 
Section initiated more matters (367 of 442) and (39 of 56) cases under 
the VRA than the other statutes it enforced. The Section initiated most 
matters (246 of 367) on behalf of language minority groups, primarily 
Spanish speakers (203 of 246). For example, in one matter, the Section 
obtained copies of bilingual general election materials from the 
elections administrator to determine whether the jurisdiction was 
complying with requirements that it provide written materials and other 
assistance for elections (e.g., ballots) in the language of the 
applicable minority group. The Section also initiated 162 matters under 
section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits voting practices or procedures 
that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a 
language minority group. About half of these matters were initiated on 
behalf of language minority groups (80 of 162), primarily Spanish 
speakers (71 of 80) and about half involved a racial minority (88 of 
162), primarily African American voters (71 of 88).[Footnote 43] For 
example, one matter involved allegations that African American students 
at a college and a university faced discriminatory treatment in the 
registration process for the 2000 Presidential election. The majority 
of the cases that the Section filed in court under the VRA were on 
behalf of language minority groups (30 of 56 cases), primarily Spanish 
speakers (27). While cases involving language minority groups were 
filed under various VRA provisions, the largest number of cases (24 of 
30) involved claims under section 203 alleging that the covered 
jurisdiction had failed to provide voting-related materials or 
information relating to the electoral process in the language of the 
applicable minority group. For example, in one case, the section 
alleged that, in conducting elections, a city, where over 45 percent of 
the total citizen voting age population was Hispanic, had not 
translated fully into Spanish written election-day materials and 
information, such as the official ballot, forms for voters with 
disabilities, and signs identifying a polling place's location, among 
others. The Section filed 13 cases that involved a claim under section 
2 of the VRA, 5 on behalf of language minority groups and 10 on behalf 
of racial minority groups--6 on behalf of Hispanics and 3 on behalf of 
African Americans.[Footnote 44] For example, the section alleged that 
certain voting practices--such as hostile acts directed at Hispanic 
voters or requiring Hispanic voters to prove their citizenship without 
credible evidence calling into question their citizenship--were in 
violation of section 2. According to aggregate data on time spent on 
matters, cases, and other activities for the 7-year period, the Voting 
Section reported devoting the greatest total percentage of time (52 
percent) to administrative reviews of proposed changes in the voting 
practices and procedures of certain jurisdictions covered under section 
5 of the VRA, such as a proposed redistricting plan--which would make 
changes to the geographic boundaries of voting districts--or the 
relocation of a polling place, as compared with cases (33 percent) or 
matters (14 percent). 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section 
initiated 693 matters and participated in 33 cases enforcing federal 
civil rights statutes in 4 areas--institutional conditions, the conduct 
of law enforcement agencies, access to reproductive health facilities 
and places of worship, and the exercise of religious freedom of 
institutionalized persons. The Section enforced the Civil Rights of 
Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act (14141), Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE), 
and the provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 
Persons Act (RLUIPA) protecting the rights of free exercise of religion 
for institutionalized persons. The Section could bring cases involving 
the exercise of religious freedom under RLUIPA and access to 
reproductive health facilities under FACE, on behalf of individuals. 
However, the Section was statutorily required to file only cases that 
alleged a pattern or practice involving institutional conditions under 
CRIPA and 14141 and of police misconduct under 14141. Because the 
Section had discretion under all these statutes to pursue an 
investigation or case, it considered all of its work to be self-
initiated. During the 7-year period, the Section initiated 693 matters 
and participated in 33 cases under federal statutes corresponding to 
its four areas of responsibility, but these matters and cases primarily 
involved institutional conditions. Of the 693 matters initiated, the 
Section concluded or closed 544 matters. The majority of the closed 
matters (373 of 544) concerned a wide range of allegations about 
institutional conditions in various types of facilities--adult 
corrections (e.g., jails and prisons), health and social welfare (e.g., 
nursing homes, mental health facilities, facilities for persons with 
developmental disabilities, and group foster homes), and juvenile 
corrections (juvenile correctional facilities or entire juvenile 
correctional systems). The allegations included failure to provide 
adequate medical, mental health, and nursing care services to 
residents; staff's physical abuse of residents; and overcrowding in the 
facility. The Section also initiated and closed 129 matters involving 
the conduct of law enforcement agencies, specifically allegations of 
police misconduct in law enforcement agencies such as police use of 
excessive force (i.e., more than necessary to subdue a citizen. During 
the 7-year period, the Section participated in 33 cases--31 as 
plaintiff, 1 as defendant, and 1 as defendant-intervenor. The majority 
(27 of 31) of the cases that the Section filed as plaintiff alleged a 
pattern or practice of egregious and flagrant conditions that deprived 
persons institutionalized in health and social welfare (13); juvenile 
corrections (7), and adult corrections (7) facilities of their 
constitutional or federal statutory rights. Cases involving juvenile 
correctional facilities constituted the largest number (7) of any one 
type of facility and included such allegations as a pattern or practice 
of failing to protect inmates from undue risk of suicide and abuse from 
staff; failure to provide adequate mental health, special education, 
rehabilitation therapy, or psychiatric services; use of isolation or 
physical restraints; and failure to provide the number of professional 
staff legally required for that type of facility. According to Special 
Litigation Section officials, the Section filed two of the seven cases 
because the respective jurisdiction refused to cooperate with the 
Section and settle the case. The Section filed the other cases, because 
Section officials believed conditions in the juvenile facilities were 
so egregious that filing a case was the proper avenue for the Section 
to monitor the respective jurisdictions' remedial efforts. In addition, 
the Section brought cases against two city and one county police 
department. All three cases alleged police use of excessive force. 
According to aggregate data on the time spent on matters and cases from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section reported devoting the 
greatest percentage of time to (62 percent) matters and cases (81 
percent) involving institutional conditions, as compared with its other 
areas of responsibility. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review 
and comment. DOJ provided technical comments, which we incorporated 
into the report as appropriate. 

The Employment Litigation Section Investigated More Matters and 
Participated in More Individual Employment Discrimination Cases under 
Section 706 of Title VII than under Other Statutory Provisions, and 
Devoted Most of its Time to Pattern or Practice Cases: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Employment Litigation Section 
enforced federal civil rights statutes that prohibit discrimination in 
employment based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and 
military service, and retaliation against a person for filing a charge 
of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposition 
discriminatory practices. During the 7-year period, the section 
initiated more matters (2,846 of 3,212) and participated in more cases 
filed in court as a plaintiff (33 of 60) under section 706 of Title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act, based on claims of individual employment 
discrimination referred from the EEOC, than other statutory provisions. 
A majority of these cases involved individual claims of sex 
discrimination on behalf of women (18 of 33), and about one-third (11 
of 33) involved claims of race discrimination. Most of the pattern or 
practice cases filed by the Section during the seven year period 
involved claims of discrimination in hiring (9 of 11) and the most 
common protected class was race (7 of 11). 

The Employment Litigation Section Had Various Statutory 
Responsibilities from FY 2001 through FY 2007: 

The Employment Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in employment based on race, 
color, sex, religion, national origin, and military service, and 
retaliation against a person for filing a charge of discrimination, 
participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory 
practices. Two major statutes enforced by the Employment Litigation 
Section are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and USERRA. The Section 
enforced Title VII from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. The Section 
began enforcing USERRA in September 2004 after the Attorney General 
transferred responsibility for USERRA enforcement to the Civil Rights 
Division. The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights delegated 
USERRA enforcement authority to the Employment Litigation section. The 
Employment Litigation Section initiates Title VII litigation in two 
ways--(1) under section 706 in response to referrals from the EEOC or 
(2) under section 707 at the discretion of the Section. The Section 
initiates USERRA litigation in response to referrals from the 
Department of Labor. Table 2 provides a description of the section's 
responsibilities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and USERRA. 
(Appendix II provides information on other statutes enforced by the 
Employment Litigation Section.) 

Table 2: Statutory provisions enforced by the Employment Litigation 
Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Statutory provision: Section 706 of Title VII of Civil Rights Act, 42 
U.S.C. § 2000e-5; Description of responsibilities: Title VII prohibits 
discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex, religion and 
national origin. Individuals who believe they were unlawfully denied an 
employment opportunity or otherwise discriminated against by an 
employer may file charges with the EEOC. If after investigation the 
EEOC determines that a charge made against a state or local government 
has merit and efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are unsuccessful, 
the EEOC must refer the charge to DOJ to bring an enforcement action. 
Section 706 provides the Attorney General with the authority to file 
suit based upon an individual charge of discrimination that EEOC has 
referred to DOJ. If the section decides not to initiate litigation, it 
is required under Title VII to notify the charging party of his or her 
right to file a private lawsuit. Section 706 also grants the Attorney 
General the authority to intervene in private cases against a public 
employer that are of general public importance. 

Statutory provision: Section 707 of Title VII of Civil Rights Act, 42 
U.S.C. § 2000e-6; Description of responsibilities: Section 707 provides 
the Attorney General with authority to bring lawsuits against state and 
local governments where there is reason to believe that there has been 
a pattern or practice of employment discrimination. 

Statutory provision: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 
Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-34; Description of 
responsibilities: USERRA prohibits discrimination in employment and 
related practices based on military service. The Department of Labor 
(DOL) investigates USERRA complaints, makes a determination as to 
whether the complaint has merit, and attempts to resolve voluntarily 
those complaints that are deemed meritorious. If the DOL is unable to 
resolve a complaint, at the request of the servicemember, DOL will 
refer the complaint to DOJ. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal laws. 

[End of table] 

The Section Initiated More Matters and Participated in More Cases under 
Section 706 of Title VII Based on Claims of Individual Employment 
Discrimination than Other Statutory Provisions: 

The Section Initiated Most Matters Under Section 706 and Most Matters 
Resulted from Agency Referrals: 

The Employment Litigation Section initiated over 3,200 matters from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. About 90 percent of the more than 3,200 
matters the Section initiated (2,846 of 3,212) alleged violations of 
section 706 of Title VII. Of the total time charged to matters during 
the 7-year period, about 65 percent was devoted to section 706 matters, 
including time charged to ongoing matters initiated prior to fiscal 
year 2001.[Footnote 45] Additionally, the Section initiated about 96 
percent of the matters (3,087 of 3,212) as a result of section 706 
referrals from the EEOC and USERRA referrals from the Department of 
Labor.As such, much of the section's matters are driven by what the 
section receives from other agencies. As shown in Table 3, the number 
of section 706 and USERRA matters initiated declined in the latter 
fiscal years, which a Section Chief attributed to a decline in 
referrals from EEOC and the Department of Labor, respectively.[Footnote 
46] In addition to initiating matters as a result of referrals from 
other federal agencies, the Section also has the authority to initiate 
section 707 pattern or practice matters at its own discretion. The 
Section initiated more than 100 pattern or practice matters based on 
its analysis of data on employers or job classifications; referrals 
from congressional members, citizens, and civil rights organizations; 
media reports; and other sources.[Footnote 47] Section officials stated 
that these matters have been a longstanding priority for the Section. 

Table 3: Matters Employment Litigation Section initiated by statute 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Statute: Section 706; 
FY 2001: 486; 
FY 2002: 494; 
FY 2003: 512; 
FY 2004: 377; 
FY 2005: 430; 
FY 2006: 269; 
FY 2007: 278; 
Total: 2,846. 

Statute: Section 707; 
FY 2001: 7; 
FY 2002: 5; 
FY 2003: 13; 
FY 2004: 55[B]; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 5; 
FY 2007: 16; 
Total: 105. 

Statute: USERRA; 
FY 2001: n/a; 
FY 2002: n/a; 
FY 2003: n/a; 
FY 2004: n/a; 
FY 2005: 110; 
FY 2006: 75; 
FY 2007: 56; 
Total: 241. 

Statute: Other[A]; 
FY 2001: 3; 
FY 2002: 6; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 8; 
Total: 20. 

Statute: Total; 
FY 2001: 496; 
FY 2002: 505; 
FY 2003: 525; 
FY 2004: 432; 
FY 2005: 545; 
FY 2006: 351; 
FY 2007: 358; 
Total: 3,212. 

Source: Division ICM data. 

Note: n/a--not applicable: 

[A] Other includes matters referred to the Section involving Section 
709 of Title VII, which requires employers to file certain reports with 
the EEOC, and matters involving section initiatives. 

[B] Thirty-nine of the 55 matters initiated in fiscal year 2004 were 
related, and one of the matters initiated in fiscal year 2004 also 
involved the Fourteenth Amendment. 

[End of table] 

According to data maintained by the Section in ICM, the Employment 
Litigation Section conducted investigations for about 390 of the 
approximately 3,100 closed matters the section initiated from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007.[Footnote 48] Section officials stated that 
professional judgment, recommendations made by the EEOC or the 
Department of Labor (in the case of EEOC and USERRA charge referrals), 
strength of the evidence, and Section resources are considered when 
deciding whether to recommend an investigation. Section officials 
acknowledged that the data maintained in ICM may understate the number 
of matters investigated because the stage field--which tracks the 
history of a matter--may not yet have been updated to indicate that an 
investigation had been authorized. Additionally, officials stated that 
some matters included in the Section's ICM data were referred to the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which has 
communicated to the Section its interest in receiving Title VII and 
USERRA referrals.[Footnote 49] 

Information on the Characteristics of the Matters Closed by the 
Employment Litigation Section and the Reasons for Closing Each Matter 
Was Not Readily Available: 

Because the Section did not require staff to maintain information in 
ICM on the subjects of matters and the protected classes of the 
individuals who were allegedly discriminated against, we could not 
determine this information for the majority of the matters closed from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Specifically, the subject field--the 
field that provides information on the nature of the allegation, e.g., 
harassment and retaliation--was not captured in ICM for about 85 
percent of the matters and the protected class field, e.g., race and 
religion, was not captured in ICM for about 83 percent of the matters. 
According to Section officials, staff are not required to maintain this 
information--information that is key to ensuring the Division executes 
its charge to enforce statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis 
of protected class--in ICM because the Section does not view this 
information as necessary for management purposes. Additionally, 
Division officials stated that when planning for ICM's implementation 
with section officials, the Division did not consider requiring 
sections to provide these data. As previously discussed, in our 
September 2009 report on ICM, we recommended that the Division require 
the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Voting 
sections to record data on protected class and all four sections to 
record data on subject in the Division's case management system in 
order to strengthen its ability to account for its enforcement 
efforts.[Footnote 50] The Division concurred with our recommendation. 
Information on protected class and subject, however, was available for 
most of the approximately 85 closed matters initiated under section 707 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007.[Footnote 51] According to ICM 
data, these matters largely focused on claims of race discrimination 
against African Americans (about 56 matters)[Footnote 52] and sex 
discrimination against females (about 48 matters), and most of the 
section 707 matters had a subject of hiring, recruitment, and/or 
testing program. Similarly, because the Section does not systematically 
collect information in ICM on the reasons matters were closed, we were 
not able to readily determine this information for the approximately 
3,300 matters the Section closed from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007.[Footnote 53] However, interviews with agency officials and our 
review of a nongeneralizable sample of 49 Employment Litigation Section 
closed matter files provided information on some of the reasons why the 
Section closed these matters. The reasons Section officials gave for 
closing matters included: 

* intervention is not justified, 

* a like or related case is or has been prosecuted, 

* the size and/or limited impact would not justify the resources 
necessary to prosecute,[Footnote 54] 

* the facts in the file would not justify prosecution, 

* the section does not have jurisdiction to bring suit, 

* a lawsuit has been filed by the charging party, and: 

* the employer provided or offered appropriate relief on its own. 

Sections also closed matters when Division managers did not approve the 
Section's recommendation to proceed with a case, although Division 
officials we interviewed could not readily identify instances in which 
this had occurred and the Section does not maintain this information in 
ICM. In our September 2009 report on ICM, we reported that capturing 
such information in ICM would enable the Division to conduct a 
systematic analysis of the reasons that matters were closed and 
determine whether there were patterns in the reasons that the Division 
or Sections may need to address.[Footnote 55] For example, Division 
management may provide additional guidance on factors it looks for in 
deciding whether to approve a section's recommendation to pursue a 
case. As previously discussed, we recommended that the Division 
determine how sections should be required to record data on the reasons 
for closing matters in the system in order to be able to systematically 
assess and take actions to address issues identified. DOJ concurred 
with our recommendation. 

We also reviewed documents from a nongeneralizable sample of 49 closed 
matter files and determined the reasons provided in the files for 
closing matters were generally consistent with the reasons identified 
by Section officials and varied by the statutory provision under which 
the investigation was conducted.[Footnote 53] As shown in Table 4, the 
most common reason (9 of 19) for closing a section 706 matter was that 
the size and/or limited impact would not justify the resources 
necessary to prosecute or the facts in the file would not justify 
prosecution. However, for 7 of the 19 section 706 closed matter files, 
the reason the matter was closed was not contained in the file 
documentation we received, and Section officials attributed this to a 
filing error. Eight of the 10 section 707 matters we reviewed were 
closed because the Section found that the evidence did not support the 
allegations. For example, in four of these matters, which were related, 
the Section determined that although evidence supported the allegation 
of a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American job 
applicants, several factors would make litigation difficult, including 
(1) the small number of African American applicants, which meant there 
was little applicant data on which to build a strong pattern or 
practice claim of hiring discrimination; (2) the remaining evidence was 
5 to 10 years old; and (3) the facts upon which the Section would bring 
a case had already been unsuccessfully litigated. The most common 
reason for closing USERRA matters was because the Section agreed with 
the Department of Labor's recommendation against providing 
representation. 

Table 4: Reasons for Closing Matters. 

Statute: Section 706; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 19[B]. 

Reason for closing matter: The size and/or limited impact would not 
justify the resources necessary to prosecute, or the facts in the file 
would not justify prosecution; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by 
GAO[A]: 9. 

Reason for closing matter: EEOC did not recommend litigation; 
Number of 
closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 5. 

Reason for closing matter: Entity took corrective action; 
Number of 
closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 2. 

Reason for closing matter: Reason not included in the documents in the 
file; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 7. 

Statute: Section 707; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 10. 

Reason for closing matter: Evidence did not support the allegations; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 8. 

Reason for closing matter: Issue was resolved through private 
litigation; Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 1. 

Reason for closing matter: Unable to determine reason[C]; 
Number of 
closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 1. 

Statute: USERRA; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 20. 

Reason for closing matter: Section agreed with Department of Labor's 
recommendation against providing representation; 
Number of closed 
matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 10. 

Reason for closing matter: Representation not provided; 
Number of 
closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 4. 

Reason for closing matter: Reason not included in the documents in the 
file; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 2. 

Reason for closing matter: Other reasons, such as plaintiff to obtain 
private counsel; 
Number of closed matters reviewed by GAO[A]: 4. 

Source: GAO review of documents from closed case matter files. 

[A] The numbers do not total to 49 because some matters were closed for 
more than one reason. 

[B] The numbers do not total to 19 because some matters were closed for 
more than one reason. 

[C] Cased on the matter documents we reviewed, the attorney recommended 
going forward with a supplemental investigation to enable additional 
information to be collected. However, the matter was closed. 

[End of table] 

The Section Filed More than Half of its Cases Under Section 706 and a 
Majority of These Cases Involved Individual Claims of Sex 
Discrimination: 

The Employment Litigation Section filed 60 cases as a plaintiff and 
participated in 18 additional cases as a plaintiff intervenor, amicus, 
or defendant from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to 
Employment Litigation section officials, legal merit is the primary 
reason for pursuing cases. Other factors considered by the section in 
deciding whether to pursue a case include the impact of the case on a 
type or category of discrimination or on a particular location, and the 
casework of the section. Other priorities, such as those of the 
Attorney General, may also influence the Section's decision to pursue 
particular kinds of cases. In July 2009, Section officials told us that 
given that the Assistant Attorneys General who authorized suits from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007 and the Section Chief who made suit 
recommendations to the Assistant Attorneys General during that period 
are no longer employed by DOJ, it would be inappropriate for them to 
speculate as to why the Section focused its efforts in particular 
areas. Nevertheless, according to Section officials, following the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Assistant Attorney General 
asked the various sections within the Division to make the development 
of cases involving religious discrimination a priority. Officials 
stated that in response to the Assistant Attorney General's request, 
the Employment Litigation Section opened a supplemental investigation 
on charge referrals related to religious discrimination.[Footnote 57] 
Section officials also reported that they aggressively pursue 
employment discrimination cases involving national origin because the 
section receives so few meritorious referrals of this type. As shown in 
Table 5, more than half of the cases (33 of 60) the Section initiated 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 were filed under section 706 of 
Title VII.[Footnote 58] However, about 19 percent of the total time the 
Section charged to cases over the 7-year period was charged to section 
706 cases, according to time data reported in the Division's time 
reporting system. According to Section officials, these cases are small 
in scope when compared with pattern or practice lawsuits that target 
systemic discrimination practices. Nevertheless, according to section 
officials, section 706 cases are important because they might not be 
pursued without the section's participation. 

Table 5: Cases the Employment Litigation Section initiated by statute 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Statute: Section 706; 
FY 2001: 6; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 5; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 9; 
Total: 33. 

Statute: Section 707; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 11. 

Statute: USERRA; 
FY 2001: n/a; 
FY 2002: n/a; 
FY 2003: n/a; 
FY 2004: n/a; 
FY 2005: 6; 
FY 2006: 4; 
FY 2007: 6; 
Total: 16. 

Statute: Total; 
FY 2001: 7; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 5; 
FY 2004: 6; 
FY 2005: 12; 
FY 2006: 10; 
FY 2007: 16; 
Total: 60. 

[End of table] 

Source: Civil Rights Division ICM data and GAO review of complaints 
filed in Court. 

A majority of the section 706 cases (18 of 33) filed from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007 involved claims of sex discrimination on behalf of 
women.[Footnote 59] For example, in January 2001, the Division filed a 
lawsuit alleging that the Village of Cuba, New Mexico discriminated 
against three females by failing or refusing to increase their hourly 
compensation at the same rate as the increase in compensation given to 
male hourly employees. Additionally, in March 2005, the Division filed 
a lawsuit alleging that the city of Cairo, Illinois discriminated 
against a female employee by sexually harassing, denying promotion, and 
terminating her employment because she refused sexual advancements from 
her supervisors. 

About one-third of the section 706 cases (11 of 33) filed during the 7- 
year period involved claims of race discrimination, with six cases 
filed on behalf of African Americans and five cases filed on behalf of 
Whites.[Footnote 60] For example, in June 2005, the Division filed a 
lawsuit alleging that the Weimar Independent School District 
discriminated against an African American individual by not selecting 
her for the high school principal position.[Footnote 61] Additionally, 
in July 2007, the Division filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 
Indianapolis discriminated against six White males by promoting African 
Americans and females to the position of sergeant even though they were 
ranked lower on the eligibility list.[Footnote 62] Table 6 provides the 
subjects and protected classes for the complaints the Division filed in 
court from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Table 6: Section 706 cases Initiated by subject and protected class 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007[A]. 

Subject: Discharge; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 2; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 3; 
Total: 11. 

Subject: Discrimination in terms/conditions; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 2. 

Subject: Harassment; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 12. 

Subject: Hiring; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 3. 

Subject: Promotion; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 2; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 9. 

Subject: Retaliation; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 4; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 12. 

Subject: Other[B]; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 7. 

Protected Class: National Origin Ethnicity; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Protected Class: National Origin Ethnicity; Hispanic or Latino; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: National Origin Ethnicity; Indian; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: National Origin Ethnicity; Not Hispanic or Latino; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Race; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total: 11. 

Protected Class: Race; African American; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 6. 

Protected Class: Race; American Indian or Alaska Native; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Race; Asian; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Race; White; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 5. 

Protected Class: Religion; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Religion; Seventh Day Adventist; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Religion; Not specified; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Sex; 
FY 2001: 3; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 4; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 5; 
Total: 21. 

Protected Class: Sex; Female; 
FY 2001: 3; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total: 18. 

Protected Class: Sex; Male; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 3. 

Source: GAO analysis of Division complaints filed in court. A The 33 
individual cases may involve multiple protected classes and subjects. 
BOther includes assignment, discipline, equal pay, and pregnancy. 

[End of table] 

The Section filed 11 pattern or practice (section 707) cases from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007,[Footnote 63] and charged about 63 
percent of the total time spent on cases over the 7-year period to 
pattern or practice cases, including time charged to ongoing cases 
filed prior to fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 64] According to Division 
officials, pattern or practice cases have consistently been a priority 
of the section because they have the greatest impact on remedying 
discriminatory practices.[Footnote 65] Under its pattern or practice 
authority, the Section obtains relief in the form of offers of 
employment, back pay and other compensatory relief for individuals who 
have been the victims of the unlawful employment practices. According 
to the Division, these cases very frequently are resolved by consent 
order prior to trial. As shown in table 7, most of the pattern or 
practice cases the Section filed involved claims of discrimination in 
hiring, and the most common protected class was race. 

Table 7: Section 707 pattern or practice cases initiated by subject 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007[A]. 

Subject: Assignment; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Subject: Discharge; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Subject: Discrimination in Terms/Conditions; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 3. 

Subject: Hiring; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 9. 

Subject: Promotion; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Subject: Recruitment; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Subject: Testing Program; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 5. 

Protected Class: National Origin Ethnicity; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 4. 

Protected Class: National Origin Ethnicity; Hispanic or Latino; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 3. 

National Origin Ethnicity; Other; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Race; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 7. 

Protected Class: Race; African American; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 4. 

Protected Class: Race; American Indian or Alaska Native; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Race; White; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Religion; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Protected Class: Religion; Jewish; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Religion; Muslim; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Religion; Sikh; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Religion; Other; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Sex; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Protected Class: Sex; Female; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Sex; Male; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of Division complaints filed in court. 

Note: The 11 individual cases may involve multiple protected classes 
and subjects. 

[End of table] 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the section filed seven pattern or 
practice cases that alleged discrimination on the basis of race--4 on 
behalf of African Americans, 2 on behalf of Whites, and 1 on behalf of 
American Indians or Alaska Natives. One such case was filed in fiscal 
year 2001, and alleged that the Delaware State Police Department was 
discriminating against African Americans in hiring for trooper 
positions. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the police 
department's use of written examinations to select entry-level state 
troopers disproportionately excluded African Americans from employment 
and was not job-related and consistent with business necessity, as 
required by federal law. 

The next pattern or practice case the section filed on behalf of 
African Americans was filed in fiscal year 2006. This case also 
involved a protected class of national origin/ethnicity specifically, 
Hispanics or Latinos. 

In July 2005, the Section filed its first case involving an allegation 
of a pattern or practice of discrimination against White males. The 
lawsuit alleged that the City of Pontiac through the Pontiac Fire 
Department pursued and continued to pursue policies and practices that 
discriminated against applicants for employment and employees based on 
race and sex by explicitly creating and maintaining a dual system for 
hiring and promotion. A second pattern or practice on behalf of White 
males was filed in February 2006. 

Three of the 11 pattern or practice cases alleged discrimination on the 
basis of religion--two were filed in fiscal year 2004 and one was filed 
in fiscal year 2005. For example, in September 2004, the Section filed 
a lawsuit alleging that the New York Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority and the New York City Transit Authority selectively enforced 
uniform policies to target Muslim and Sikh employees whose religious 
beliefs and practices required that they wear head coverings. According 
to the lawsuit, Muslim, Sikh, and similarly situated employees suffered 
adverse employment actions. 

Three of the 11 pattern or practice cases included claims of sex 
discrimination--one related to females and two related to males. 
[Footnote 66] For example, in January 2004, the Division filed a suit 
alleging that the city of Erie, Pennsylvania discriminated against 
females by, among other things, failing or refusing to hire women for 
the entry-level position of police officer on the same basis as men. 
(Appendix II contains additional information on each of the section 707 
cases.) 

The Employment Litigation Section also initiated 16 USERRA cases from 
fiscal years 2005 through 2007, as shown in Table 8, and charged about 
6 percent of its total time spent on cases to these cases.[Footnote 67] 
More than half of these cases (10 of 16) alleged violations of 
reemployment rights and/or discharge under USERRA.[Footnote 68] For 
example, in March 2005, the Division filed a lawsuit alleging that an 
employer violated USERRA by denying the plaintiff reemployment rights 
upon his return from military service and by discharging him. In 
another lawsuit filed in September 2007, the Division alleged that the 
employer violated USERRA by demoting the plaintiff upon his return from 
military service and subsequently discharging him because of his 
membership, service, or obligation to perform service in the uniformed 
services. 

Table 8: USERRA cases Initiated by subject from fiscal years 2005 
through 2007[A]. 

Subject: Assignment; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 1. 

Subject: Benefit; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Subject: Discharge; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 5; 
Total: 10. 

Subject: Discipline; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Subject: Discrimination in terms/conditions; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 4. 

Subject: Reemployment; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total: 10. 

Source: GAO analysis of Division complaints filed in court. 

Note: Individual cases can involve multiple subjects. 

[End of table] 

The Employment Litigation Section also participated in 18 additional 
cases in the role of plaintiff intervenor (11),[Footnote 69] defendant 
(6), and amicus curiae (1). (Appendix II includes additional 
information on these cases as well as cases that were filed prior to 
fiscal year 2001 that the Section was still involved in, e.g., 
monitoring compliance, from fiscal years 2001 through 2007.) 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Initiated More Matters and 
Participated in More Cases Involving a Pattern or Practice of 
Discrimination under the Fair Housing Act than Any Other Statute or 
Type of Matter or Case: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section was primarily responsible for the enforcement of federal civil 
rights statutes related to discrimination in housing, credit 
transactions, and in certain places of public accommodation. During 
this time period, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section initiated 
more matters (517 of 947) and participated in more cases (257 of 277) 
under FHA than any other statute or type of matter or case. Nearly 90 
percent of the matters (456 of 517) were initiated under its pattern or 
practice authority under the FHA, primarily alleging discrimination on 
the basis of race or disability and involving land/zoning/local 
government or rental issues. The majority (250 of 269) of cases that 
the Section filed in court as plaintiff involved a claim under FHA-- 
more than half (132 of 250) of which involved a pattern or practice of 
discrimination. Additionally, more than half (141 of 250) of the FHA 
cases involved rental issues and nearly half (118 of 250) were brought 
on behalf of persons with a disability. 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Had Various Statutory 
Responsibilities from fiscal years 2001 through 2007: 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section is primarily responsible for 
the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes related to 
discrimination in housing, credit transactions, and in certain places 
of public accommodation, which have been long-standing responsibilities 
for the Section. From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section had 
responsibility for enforcing provisions of the FHA and the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act (ECOA). Additionally, in the spring of 2001, the 
Section received responsibility for enforcing the land use provisions 
of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) 
and, in July 2006, received responsibility for enforcing the 
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The Section has the discretion 
to investigate matters and bring cases under all of the statutes it 
enforces, with the exception of HUD "election cases," which the Section 
is statutorily required to file. These nondiscretionary referrals are 
called "election cases" because either the complaining party or the 
respondent has elected to have the case heard in federal court, rather 
than through a HUD administrative hearing process. The Section, 
however, has discretion about whether to add a pattern or practice 
allegation to the HUD-referred election complaint, if supported by the 
evidence. Furthermore, the Section has the authority and discretion to 
independently file pattern or practice cases and to pursue referrals 
other than HUD election cases.[Footnote 70] Table 9 presents the 
responsibilities of the Section, by statute. (Appendix III provides 
greater detail about each statute enforced by the Section.) 

Table 9: Statutory provisions enforced by the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007[A]. 

Statutory provision: The Fair Housing Act (FHA); 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et. 
seq.; Description of responsibilities: The FHA prohibits discrimination 
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national 
origin, or disability in all types of housing transactions. The FHA 
allows individuals who believe they have been injured by a 
discriminatory housing practice to file complaints with HUD and DOJ to 
bring suit where there is reason to believe that a person or entity has 
engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. 

Statutory provision: Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 
1691 et seq.; Description of responsibilities: ECOA prohibits creditors 
from discriminating against applicants in any aspect of a credit 
transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, 
sex, marital status, age, because all or part of the applicant's income 
derives from any public assistance program, or because the applicant 
has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit 
Protection Act. 

Statutory provision: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title 
II), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to a-5; Description of responsibilities: Title 
II prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or 
national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as 
motels, restaurants, or movie theaters. 

Statutory provision: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 
Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.; Description of 
responsibilities: RLUIPA prohibits state and local governments from 
unjustifiably imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise or 
imposing land use regulations that discriminate against a religious 
assembly or institution. 

Statutory provision: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 
U.S.C. App. §§ 501-96; Description of responsibilities: The SCRA 
provides protections for members of the military as they enter active 
duty, such as the suspension of judicial and administrative 
proceedings. 

Source: GAO review of federal statutes. 

[A] The Section is also responsible for enforcing several statutes that 
prohibit discrimination in, among other things, programs where the 
operator of the program receives federal funds. Such statutes include 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These kinds of cases can be brought only 
after a referral from the agency that administers the relevant 
federally funded program. Additionally, the Section enforces Title III 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in 
public facilities. 

[End of table] 

More Than Half of the Matters the Section Initiated Involved an 
Allegation Under the FHA: 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section initiated 947 matters from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to Section officials, the 
Section initiated matters based on referrals from HUD; allegations of 
discrimination received from Members of Congress, citizens, private 
attorneys, advocacy groups, and federal agencies; and the section's 
review of media sources and written materials, such as policies stated 
in advertisements or other printed documentation.[Footnote 71] The 
Division's budget submission for fiscal year 2007 identifies that the 
pattern or practice cases in the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 
remained a high priority because of their broad impact. As shown in 
table 10, more than half (517 of 947) of the matters initiated involved 
an allegation under the FHA,[Footnote 72] of which about 90 percent 
(456 of 517) included an allegation of a pattern or practice of 
discrimination.[Footnote 73] Furthermore, according to time data for 
the 7-year period, of the total time section staff charged to matters, 
most of the time (about 78 percent) was charged to matters involving 
allegations under FHA (either solely or in combination with other 
statutes).[Footnote 74] After the FHA, the Section initiated the 
majority of matters (252 of 947) and devoted about 19 percent of its 
time to ECOA matters (either solely or in combination with other 
statutes). (Appendix III includes additional information on the matters 
initiated by the Section, the time charged to matters during the 7-year 
period, and the reasons the Section identified for closing 
matters.)[Footnote 75] Table 10 shows the numbers of matters the 
Section initiated, by statute. 

Table 10: Matters initiated by statute from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007. 

Statute: FHA; 
Statute Combinations: FHA; 
FY 2001: 94; 
FY 2002: 75; 
FY 2003: 80; 
FY 2004: 60; 
FY 2005: 59; 
FY 2006: 63; 
FY 2007: 49; 
Total: 480. 

Statute: FHA; 
Statute Combinations: FHA and Section 504; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Statute: FHA; 
Statute Combinations: Total; 
FY 2001: 95; 
FY 2002: 75; 
FY 2003: 80; 
FY 2004: 60; 
FY 2005: 59; 
FY 2006: 63; 
FY 2007: 49; 
Total: 481. 

Statute: ECOA; 
Statute Combinations: ECOA; 
FY 2001: 18; 
FY 2002: 17; 
FY 2003: 31; 
FY 2004: 54; 
FY 2005: 36; 
FY 2006: 42; 
FY 2007: 20; 
Total: 218. 

Statute: ECOA; 
Statute Combinations: ECOA and FHA; 
FY 2001: 8; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 2; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 8; 
FY 2007: 6; 
Total: 33. 

Statute: ECOA; 
Statute Combinations: ECOA and Title III; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Statute: ECOA; 
Statute Combinations: Total; 
FY 2001: 26; 
FY 2002: 18; 
FY 2003: 33; 
FY 2004: 58; 
FY 2005: 41; 
FY 2006: 50; 
FY 2007: 26; 
Total: 252. 

Statute: RLUIPA; 
Statute Combinations: RLUIPA; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 30; 
FY 2004: 25; 
FY 2005: 32; 
FY 2006: 23; 
FY 2007: 16; 
Total: 131. 

Statute: RLUIPA; 
Statute Combinations: RLUIPA and FHA; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 3. 

Statute: RLUIPA; 
Statute Combinations: Total; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 31; 
FY 2004: 25; 
FY 2005: 32; 
FY 2006: 23; 
FY 2007: 18; 
Total: 134. 

Statute: Title II; 
FY 2001: 13; 
FY 2002: 10; 
FY 2003: 8; 
FY 2004: 7; 
FY 2005: 7; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 50. 

Statute: SCRA; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: 8; 
Total: 8. 

Statute: Other[A]; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 7; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 4; 
FY 2007: 3; 
Total: 22. 

Grand Total: 
FY 2001: 137; 
FY 2002: 109; 
FY 2003: 152; 
FY 2004: 157; 
FY 2005: 143; 
FY 2006: 143; 
FY 2007: 106; 
Total: 947. 

Source: Division ICM Aggregate Data. 

[A] Other includes Title III, Title VI, Title VI and Section 504, 
Section 504, and Criminal Interference With Housing Rights. Matters 
involving these statutes are described in Appendix III. 

[End of table] 

The Section initiated the fewest number of total matters, 106, in 
fiscal year 2007. Section officials attributed the decrease, in part, 
to a decline in the number of referrals from HUD, as shown in figure 1, 
and the bank regulatory agencies. In addition, Section officials stated 
that the number of matters initiated can fluctuate each year depending 
on the extent to which the Section's resources are focused on the 
litigation of large cases. According to section officials, the general 
decrease in HUD election referrals over time resulted in part from more 
complaints of housing discrimination being handled by state and local 
fair housing agencies instead of HUD. According to Section officials, 
since the passage of the amendments of the FHA, more state and local 
fair housing agencies have been certified to receive complaints of 
discriminatory housing practices.[Footnote 76] Such certification is 
granted if the Secretary of HUD determines that a state or local agency 
affords substantially equivalent rights and regulations to those 
provided in the FHA. Housing and Civil Enforcement Section officials 
stated that as a result, HUD handles a third to a fourth fewer 
complaints than before. Further, over the 7-year period, ICM data show 
a general decline of election matters--non-discretionary matters 
involving an allegation under the FHA--that are derived from HUD 
referrals. Figure 1 HUD Referrals from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Figure 1: HUD Referrals from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Number of referrals: 97. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Number of referrals: 62. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of referrals: 44. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of referrals: 46. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of referrals: 50. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of referrals: 39. 

Fiscal year: 2007. 
Number of referrals: 33. 

Source: Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 
Report on HUD Referrals. 

[End of figure] 

FHA Matters Primarily Involved Allegations of Discrimination on the 
Basis of Race or Disability and Issues Involving Land/Zoning/Local 
Government or Rental: 

The largest proportions of FHA matters the Section initiated involved 
allegations of discrimination based on race, disability, or both. 
[Footnote 77] About 44 percent (228 of 517) of FHA matters initiated 
involved allegations of racial discrimination--of which almost all (207 
of 228) involved allegations of discrimination against African 
Americans. Further, 99 of the 517 FHA matters (about 19 percent) 
involved at least one allegation of discrimination on the basis of 
national origin/ethnicity, 79 of which involved allegations of 
discrimination against Hispanic or Latinos. Approximately 40 percent 
(206 of 517) of the matters the Section initiated under the FHA from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007, involved at least one allegation of 
discrimination based on disability as shown in table 11.[Footnote 78] 

Table 11: Bases of allegations for FHA matters initiated fiscal year 
2001 through 2007. 

Protected Class: Disability; 
FY 2001: 44; 
FY 2002: 33; 
FY 2003: 29; 
FY 2004: 27; 
FY 2005: 25; 
FY 2006: 25; 
FY 2007: 23; 
Total: 206. 

Protected Class: Family; 
FY 2001: 14; 
FY 2002: 11; 
FY 2003: 4; 
FY 2004: 7; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 6; 
FY 2007: 3; 
Total: 48. 

Protected Class: National Origin Ethnicity; 
FY 2001: 17; 
FY 2002: 13; 
FY 2003: 17; 
FY 2004: 12; 
FY 2005: 9; 
FY 2006: 12; 
FY 2007: 19; 
Total: 99. 

Protected Class: Race; 
FY 2001: 45; 
FY 2002: 36; 
FY 2003: 36; 
FY 2004: 22; 
FY 2005: 29; 
FY 2006: 34; 
FY 2007: 26; 
Total: 228. 

Protected Class: Other[A]; 
FY 2001: 6; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 5; 
FY 2004: 11; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2007: 12; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total: 45. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM aggregate matter data. 

[A] Table includes all matters with an allegation under FHA. If a 
single complaint alleged multiple bases, it was counted under each 
basis alleged. Since one matter can involve multiple protected classes, 
the numbers of allegations is greater than the 517 matters. 

[B] Other includes age, color, homeless, marital status, religion, sex, 
and source of income. 

[End of table] 

As shown in Table 12, about 35 percent (181 of 517) of the FHA matters 
the Section initiated involved the subject, or issue, of land/zoning/ 
local government, which is used for allegations of discriminatory 
actions taken by a local zoning board or governing body. According to 
Section officials, the large number of land/zoning/local government 
matters it initiated was due to the Section regularly receiving 
referrals from HUD as well as complaints from other entities involving 
these issues. Division officials identified that a Section priority 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 was to ensure that zoning and other 
regulations concerning land were not used to hinder the residential 
choices of individuals with disabilities. Another priority was ensuring 
that newly constructed multifamily housing is built in accordance with 
the FHA's accessibility requirements.[Footnote 79] 

Table 12: Issues in FHA matters initiated fiscal year 2001 through 2007 
(includes all matters with an allegation filed under FHA)[A]. 

Subject (Issue): Group Homes; 
FY 2001: 21; 
FY 2002: 19; 
FY 2003: 12; 
FY 2004: 14; 
FY 2005: 7; 
FY 2006: 8; 
FY 2007: 6; 
Total: 87. 

Subject (Issue): Harassment; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 5; 
FY 2006: 5; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total: 20. 

Subject (Issue): Land/Zoning/Local Government; 
FY 2001: 40; 
FY 2002: 31; 
FY 2003: 32; 
FY 2004: 28; 
FY 2005: 20; 
FY 2006: 16; 
FY 2007: 14; 
Total: 181. 

Subject (Issue): Lending; 
FY 2001: 8; 
FY 2002: 6; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 7; 
FY 2006: 9; 
FY 2007: 6; 
43. 

Subject (Issue): New Construction; 
FY 2001: 11; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 4; 
FY 2004: 6; 
FY 2005: 10; 
FY 2006: 5; 
FY 2007: 7; 
Total: 44. 

Subject (Issue): Other Housing Subject Matter[B]; 
FY 2001: 9; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 18; 
FY 2004: 8; 
FY 2005: 11; 
FY 2006: 10; 
FY 2007: 5; 
Total: 65. 

Subject (Issue): Rental; 
FY 2001: 29; 
FY 2002: 27; 
FY 2003: 23; 
FY 2004: 15; 
FY 2005: 16; 
FY 2006: 24; 
FY 2007: 13; 
Total: 147. 

Subject (Issue): Retaliation; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 5; 
FY 2007: 1; 
12. 

Subject (Issue): Sales; 
FY 2001: 9; 
FY 2002: 7; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 3; 
Total: 29. 

Subject (Issue): Other[C]; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 10. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM aggregate matter data. 

Note: Includes all matters with an allegation filed under the FHA. 

[A] If a single complaint alleged multiple issues, it was counted under 
each issue alleged. 

[B] Other Housing Subject Matter covers items that relate to a housing 
complaint but do not involve the denial of housing––such as the denial 
of utilities or repairs. 

[C] Other includes insurance, other non-housing subject matter, and 
public accommodations. 

[End of table] 

Rental matters were also among the most common matters the section 
initiated (147 of 517), followed by group homes (87 of 517). Rental 
matters involve discrimination in property that is listed for a fee, 
and can involve issues such as eviction, the discriminatory provision 
of services and facilities occupancy restrictions, and the assessment 
of rental fees based on the number of occupants. For example, the 
Section investigated a matter in which a landlord of an apartment 
complex allegedly turned away families with children or assigned them 
to a particular floor. 

According to Section officials, the number of rental-related issues is 
reflective of larger national trends in that discrimination in rental 
housing may be more frequently reported or easier to detect than in 
home sales. 

Additionally, matters involving allegations of discrimination in group 
homes were among the largest number of FHA matters the Section 
initiated. In 2001, the President announced the New Freedom Initiative 
and issued Executive Order 13217, which addressed the implementation of 
existing laws in light of the Olmstead decision, where the Supreme 
Court held that under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
states are required to provide community-based treatment for persons 
with mental disabilities, where appropriate.[Footnote 80] According to 
the Division, in response, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 
increased its focus on discrimination against group homes for 
individuals with disabilities, and housing providers employing policies 
designed to bar individuals with disabilities.[Footnote 81] For 
example, the Section opened an investigation in fiscal year 2003 on 
behalf of complainants who had been denied a conditional use permit for 
a residential group home, which would have allowed them to build the 
home on their property despite certain zoning restrictions. The 
complainants alleged the city had acted in a discriminatory manner 
against the disabled and group homes for the disabled by denying the 
permit. 

Over a Quarter of Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Matters 
Initiated Involved Lending Issues under ECOA: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section initiated about 250 
matters with at least one allegation under ECOA involving a lending 
issue. As shown in Table 13, about 70 percent (177 of 252) of these 
matters included allegations of discrimination based on age, marital 
status, or both. Section officials stated that due to the high number 
of bank and regulatory agency referrals from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007 that involved allegations of discrimination based on marital 
status or age, the majority of matters initiated during the 7-year 
period also involved these bases of discrimination. For example, the 
FDIC alleged a bank committed a discriminatory pattern or practice in 
violation of ECOA by requiring the spouses of the guarantors to sign 
commercial guarantees (business agreements). Allegedly, the guarantees 
were required only because of a spousal relationship with the guarantor 
and not because of any business relationship. Additionally, according 
to Section officials and DOJ's annual ECOA reports to Congress, all but 
a small number of the referrals based on age and marital status are of 
the type that are generally returned for administrative resolution 
because the unlawful practice has discontinued and there is little 
chance that it will be repeated.[Footnote 82] Section officials also 
stated that matters that involved allegations of discrimination based 
on race or national origin/ethnicity generally involve more complicated 
issues and may not be as easily corrected by administrative enforcement 
action the bank regulatory agencies can take. Additionally, according 
to Section officials, issues of potential lending discrimination based 
on race or national origin have long been priorities for the Division. 
Thus, a larger proportion of race and national origin discrimination 
matters are retained and investigated by DOJ and may eventually become 
cases. 

Table 13: Basis of Allegations for ECOA matters fiscal year 2001 
through 2007 (includes all matters with an allegation filed under 
ECOA). 

ECOA: 
FY 2001: 26; 
FY 2002: 18; 
FY 2003: 33; 
FY 2004: 58; 
FY 2005: 41; 
FY 2006: 50; 
FY 2007: 26; 
Total: 252. 

Age: 
FY 2001: 6; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 9; 
FY 2004: 21; 
FY 2005: 11; 
FY 2006: 13; 
FY 2007: 3; 
Total: 65. 

Marital Status: 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 11; 
FY 2003: 15; 
FY 2004: 28; 
FY 2005: 22; 
FY 2006: 18; 
FY 2007: 14; 
Total: 112. 

National Origin/Ethnicity: 
FY 2001: 6; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 6; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 5; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total: 30. 

Race: 
FY 2001: 17; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 9; 
FY 2004: 6; 
FY 2005: 10; 
FY 2006: 10; 
FY 2007: 8; 
Total: 60. 

Unfair Documentary Practices[A]: 
FY 2001: 3; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 7; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total: 10. 

Other[B]: 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 5; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 4; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 21. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM aggregate matter data: 

[A] If a single complaint alleged multiple bases, it was counted under 
each basis alleged. 

[B] Unfair documentary practices" is used to describe unfair 
requirements for materials to determine income, national origin, and 
creditworthiness, or inappropriate use of fraud of active duty alerts 
on credit reports. 

[C] Other includes disability, source of income, sex, family, and 
religion. 

[End of table] 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, about a third (90 of 252) of 
matters initiated with at least one allegation under ECOA involved the 
protected classes of race, national origin/ethnicity, or both, as shown 
in Table 13. Based on ICM data kept by the section, 51 of these 90 
matters (about 56 percent) involved racial discrimination against 
African-Americans and 20 (about 22 percent) involved national origin 
discrimination against Hispanics or Latinos. For example, the Section 
initiated an investigation to determine if the defendant, a car 
dealership, engaged in discrimination against African-Americans in 
setting finance terms for car loans. The Section initiated the 
investigation after a Section attorney read a newspaper article in 
which a former employee made admissions concerning the discriminatory 
actions of his former employer. 

As shown in table 13, the number of matters initiated under ECOA varied 
from fiscal years 2001 to 2007. According to Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section officials, the variance was in part due to the 
number and type of ECOA matters referred to the Section. For example, 
new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act[Footnote 83] regulations promulgated 
by the Federal Reserve Board, effective in 2004, changed the type and 
amount of information lenders were required to report on home loans 
under this Act, including some data on loan pricing by race and 
gender.[Footnote 84] As a result, the Section received an increased 
number of race and national origin referrals, even as the total number 
of bank agency referrals decreased, and reported devoting more time to 
reviewing the race and national origin referrals and developing cases 
from them.[Footnote 85] Consequently, Section officials stated that as 
a result, they initiated fewer matters on their own. In addition, with 
respect to type of referral, Section officials explained that 
investigations involving national origin and race take a greater amount 
of resources to review than cases involving other protected classes. 
According to these officials, because the Section conducted more of 
these investigations in fiscal year 2007, and these types of 
investigations are complex, the overall of matters initiated in fiscal 
year 2007 declined.[Footnote 86] 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Initiated Matters Under 
RLUIPA, Title II, and Other Statutes: 

After FHA and ECOA matters, the Housing and Civil Enforcement section 
initiated the highest numbers of matters under RLUIPA and Title II of 
the Civil Rights Act. Of the 947 matters initiated by the Section, 134 
(about 14 percent) included at least one allegation under RLUIPA, of 
which nearly all involved allegations of religious discrimination and 
the subject of land/zoning/local government. For example, a religious 
society alleged the county violated RLUIPA by not granting a special 
exception permit to a zoning code that restricts the height of 
structures in residential zones for the construction of a mosque, where 
the zoning code had an exception for Christian structures. Fifty (about 
5 percent) of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section matters were 
initiated under Title II, of which about 36 matters (about 72 percent) 
involved allegations of discrimination based on race in places of 
public accommodation. (Appendix III provides information on the numbers 
of matters the Section initiated under other statutory provisions, 
including Title III, Title VI, and the SCRA.) 

Most of the Cases Filed by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 
Included a Claim under the FHA and Involved Rental Issues Regarding 
Discrimination on the Basis of Disability or Race: 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed 269 cases as plaintiff 
in fiscal years 2001 through 2007.[Footnote 87] Additionally, the 
Section participated in seven cases as amicus, and served as intervenor 
on behalf of the plaintiffs in one case.[Footnote 88] According to 
Section officials, the Section considers legal merit when deciding 
whether to pursue a matter as a case as well as (1) whether it appears 
the matter will be resolved without Section intervention, such as by 
the local jurisdiction, (2) whether litigation would resolve a 
significant statutory issue, such as the interpretation of a provision 
of law the Section enforces; and (3) whether the plaintiff has the 
resources to proceed on his or her own should the Section choose not to 
get involved. Section officials stated that the section examines 
evidence of disparate impact--practices that are not intended to 
discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on 
minorities--when relevant to individual or pattern or practice cases, 
although the Section had never filed a case based solely on disparate 
impact evidence. The Section's decision to pursue particular kinds of 
cases may also be influenced by other priorities, such as those of the 
Assistant Attorney General. The Section may litigate cases solely or 
share litigation responsibility with a U.S. Attorney's Office.[Footnote 
89] 

About 90 Percent of the Section's Cases Included a Claim Under FHA and 
More than Half of These Cases Involved Rental Issues: 

As shown in table 14, the Section participated in 277 cases from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007.[Footnote 90] Of the 277 cases, 140 were HUD-
referred election cases—35 of which included an additional allegation 
of a pattern or practice of discrimination. Additionally, about 90 
percent (257 of 277) of the cases included a claim under the FHA and 
250 of these FHA cases were filed as plaintiff. 

Table 14: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases by Statute and 
Fiscal Year Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Statutes: FHA; 

Statute Combinations: Section 504; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Statute Combinations: FHA; 
FY 2001: 49; 
FY 2002: 45; 
FY 2003: 26; 
FY 2004: 31; 
FY 2005: 40; 
FY 2006: 28; 
FY 2007: 29; 
Total: 248. 

Statute Combinations: 3613(E)[A]; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Statute Combinations: FHA Total; 
FY 2001: 49; 
FY 2002: 46; 
FY 2003: 26; 
FY 2004: 33; 
FY 2005: 40; 
FY 2006: 28; 
FY 2007: 29; 
Total: 251. 

Statutes: ECOA; 

Statute Combinations: ECOA; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: 3; 
Total: 4. 

Statute Combinations: ECOA and FHA; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 5. 

Statute Combinations: ECOA Total; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total: 9. 

Statutes: RLUIPA; 

Statute Combinations: RLUIPA; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2006: 1; 
Total: 4. 

Statute Combinations: RLUIPA and FHA; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Statute Combinations: RLUIPA Total; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 5. 

Statutes: Title II; 

Statute Combinations: Title II; 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 12. 

Title II Total; 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: [Empty];
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 12. 

Total; 
FY 2001: 53; 
FY 2002: 49; 
FY 2003: 29; 
FY 2004: 38; 
FY 2005: 42; 
FY 2006: 31; 
FY 2007: 35; 
Total: 277. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[A] 42 U.S.C. § 3613(e) allows the Attorney General to intervene in 
cases involve discriminatory housing practices where the Attorney 
General certifies that the case is of general public importance. 

[End of table] 

ICM data show the number of cases filed by the Housing Section 
generally decreased from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to 
Section officials, the decline can be attributed to fewer election 
cases being referred from HUD. Overall, almost 70 percent (185 of 277) 
of the cases the Housing Section participated in from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007 originally derived from a HUD referral. Such cases 
declined from 75 percent (40 of 53) of cases filed in fiscal year 2001 
to 63 percent (24 of 38) of cases filed in fiscal year 2004. Such cases 
increased in fiscal year 2005, but again declined in fiscal years 2006 
and 2007 to around 50 percent (17 of 35) of cases filed in fiscal year 
2007. Among HUD-referred cases are election cases, which the Section is 
statutorily required to file. As shown in table 15, the Section filed 
the largest number of election cases (25) in fiscal year 2001 and the 
lowest number (12) in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 91] Section officials 
reported that the number of cases with an allegation of pattern or 
practice varied slightly over the 7-year period and the Section has 
more control over these kinds of cases because it can initiate them 
without a referral. However, Section officials also said that the 
number of pattern and practice cases filed may fluctuate each year 
depending on the extent to which the Section's resources are focused on 
the litigation of large cases. Additionally, in some years, the Section 
may file more consent orders resolving ongoing cases, while in other 
years the Section may file more cases. According to time data 
maintained by the Division, the Section spent at least three-quarters 
of its time on pattern and practice cases each year from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007. (Appendix III includes information on the percentage 
of time Section staff charged by case type for the 7-year period.) 

Table 15: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Case Types for Cases 
Initiated between fiscal year 2001 through 2007. 

Case Type: Pattern and Practice; 
FY 2001: 18; 
FY 2002: 20; 
FY 2003: 14; 
FY 2004: 17; 
FY 2005: 16; 
FY 2006: 14; 
FY 2007: 17; 
Total: 116. 

Case Type: Election Case; 
FY 2001: 25; 
FY 2002: 22; 
FY 2003: 6; 
FY 2004: 11; 
FY 2005: 17; 
FY 2006: 10; 
FY 2007: 14; 
Total: 105. 

Case Type: Pattern and Practice Election; 
FY 2001: 6; 
FY 2002: 5; 
FY 2003: 6; 
FY 2004: 5; 
FY 2005: 6; 
FY 2006: 5; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 35. 

Case Type: Enforcement; 
FY 2001: ; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 13. 

Case Type: Amicus Participation; 
FY 2001: 3; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 7. 

Case Type: Amicus Participation Pattern and Practice; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Total: 
FY 2001: 53; 
FY 2002: 49; 
FY 2003: 29; 
FY 2004: 38; 
FY 2005: 42; 
FY 2006: 31; 
FY 2007: 35; 
Total: 277. 

Source: GAO Analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

For cases the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed as plaintiff 
involving at least one allegation under the FHA, the Section asserted 
more claims related to rental issues (146 of 250) than any other 
subject, as shown in Table 16.[Footnote 92] In one rental case, the 
defendant allegedly violated FHA when he discriminated against African- 
American tenants at two apartment complexes that he owned and managed 
by evicting African-American tenants, while not evicting similarly 
situated non-African-American tenants. Specifically, the defendant 
allegedly required African-American tenants to vacate their apartments 
permanently due to renovation work while not requiring non-African- 
American tenants to do so, and failed to provide necessary and 
requested maintenance to African-American tenants while providing such 
maintenance to non-African American tenants. 

Table 16: Issues in FHA cases filed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 
(includes all claims with an allegation filed under FHA)[A]. 

Subject (Issue): Rental; 
FY 2001: 27; 
FY 2002: 27; 
FY 2003: 14; 
FY 2004: 14; 
FY 2005: 22; 
FY 2006: 19; 
FY 2007: 23; 
Total Occurrences: 146. 

Subject (Issue): New Construction; 
FY 2001: 15; 
FY 2002: 7; 
FY 2003: 6; 
FY 2004: 8; 
FY 2005: 6; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 6; 
Total Occurrences: 51. 

Subject (Issue): Retaliation; 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 5; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 6; 
FY 2007: 6; 
Total Occurrences: 26. 

Subject (Issue): Harassment; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 6; 
FY 2006: 6; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total Occurrences: 5. 

Subject (Issue): Testing Program; 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 2; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total Occurrences: 18. 

Subject (Issue): Land/Zoning/Local Government; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total Occurrences: 17. 

Subject (Issue): Sales; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 4; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total Occurrences: 16. 

Subject (Issue): Group Homes[B]; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 2; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 3; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total Occurrences: 12. 

Subject (Issue): Other Housing Subject Matter; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total Occurrences: 11. 

Subject (Issue): Other[C]; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total Occurrences: 10. 

Source: Division ICM data. 

[A] If a single complaint alleged multiple issues, it was counted under 
each issue alleged. 

[B] Group home cases are usually a subset of land/zoning/local 
government cases. 

[C] Other includes lending, insurance, and other non-housing subject 
matter. 

[End of table] 

Additionally, the Section asserted more claims on behalf of persons 
with a disability (115 of 250) than any other protected class, as shown 
in Table 17. For example, one of the complaints we reviewed was filed 
on behalf of a man with a disability who had filed a complaint with HUD 
against the property manager and owner of his apartment complex, 
alleging the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his 
physical impairments when they unreasonably prolonged meeting his 
request for a ground floor apartment and did not provide the reasonable 
accommodation of handicapped parking spaces. 

Table 17: Bases of claims for FHA cases filed from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007: 

Protected Class (Basis): Disability; 
FY 2001: 20; 
FY 2002: 17; 
FY 2003: 13; 
FY 2004: 18; 
FY 2005: 18; 
FY 2006: 13; 
FY 2007: 16; 
Total Occurrences: 115. 

Protected Class (Basis): Family; 
FY 2001: 13; 
FY 2002: 10; 
FY 2003: 7; 
FY 2004: 6; 
FY 2005: 6; 
FY 2006: 4; 
FY 2007: 5; 
Total Occurrences: 51. 

Protected Class (Basis): National Origin/Ethnicity; 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 5; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 3; 
Total Occurrences: 23. 

Protected Class (Basis): National Origin/Ethnicity; Hispanic or Latino; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 2; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total Occurrences: 14. 

Protected Class (Basis): National Origin/Ethnicity; Other[B]; 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 2; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total Occurrences: 11. 

Protected Class (Basis): Race; 
FY 2001: 15; 
FY 2002: 16; 
FY 2003: 8; 
FY 2004: 7; 
FY 2005: 11; 
FY 2006: 8; 
FY 2007: 5; 
Total Occurrences: 70. 

Protected Class (Basis): Race; African American; 
FY 2001: 12; 
FY 2002: 15; 
FY 2003: 8; 
FY 2004: 7; 
FY 2005: 11; 
FY 2006: 8; 
FY 2007: 5; 
Total Occurrences: 66. 

Protected Class (Basis): Race; Asian; 
FY 2001: 3; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total Occurrences: 5. 

Protected Class (Basis): Race; Other[C]; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total Occurrences: 3. 

Protected Class (Basis): Sex; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 4; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 5; 
FY 2006: 6; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total Occurrences: 25. 

Protected Class (Basis): Sex; Female; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 4; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 4; 
FY 2006: 5; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total Occurrences: 22. 

Protected Class (Basis): Sex; Male; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total Occurrences: 3. 

Protected Class (Basis): Other[D]; 
FY 2001: 2; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 0; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Total Occurrences: 6. 

Source: Division ICM data. 

[A] If a single complaint alleged multiple bases, it was counted under 
each basis alleged. 

[B] For National Origin cases, the category other includes American 
Indian or Alaskan Native, Arab, Indian, Not Hispanic or Latino, and 
Other. 

[C] For race cases, the category other includes American-Indian or 
Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and White. 

[D] Other includes color and religion. 

[End of table] 

Furthermore, 70 of the 250 FHA cases that the Housing Section filed as 
plaintiff involved at least one claim of racial discrimination, 
primarily related to rental issues (about 50 of 70). Of those 70 cases, 
which include HUD election cases that the Section is statutorily 
required to file, about 66 were described as concerning racial 
discrimination against African-Americans. As shown in Table 18, the 
number of cases with a claim of racial discrimination generally 
declined from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to Section 
officials, since the Section has discretion to initiate the FHA pattern 
or practice cases it files, not the HUD election cases, it is more 
meaningful to look at the trend in the filing of those cases. Our 
review of the FHA pattern and practice cases identified that of the 132 
pattern or practice cases the Section filed as plaintiff from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007, 30 included at least one claim of racial 
discrimination. From fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the number of such 
cases filed ranged from 6 to 7. The Section filed 3 such cases each 
year from fiscal years 2004 through 2006, and two cases in fiscal year 
2007. 

The Section Conducted Over 1,700 Housing Tests and Filed 20 Housing 
Testing Cases Over the 7-Year Period: 

The section filed 20 cases derived from over 1,700 tests conducted as 
part of its Fair Housing Testing Program from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007.[Footnote 93] In 1991, the section created the Fair Housing 
Testing Program to help enforce the FHA. Generally, fair housing 
testing involves individuals who pose as prospective buyers or renters 
of real estate to gather information that may indicate whether a 
housing provider is complying with fair housing laws.The purpose of 
this testing is to allow the section to identify potential patterns or 
practices of housing discrimination that may go undetected.[Footnote 
94] According to section officials, in fiscal year 2005, DOJ set the 
goal of doubling the number of tests conducted by fiscal year 2007. As 
shown in figure 2, DOJ exceeded this goal. 

Figure 2: Housing Testing Conducted from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Number of tests: 237. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Number of tests: 110. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of tests: 135. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of tests: 162. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of tests: 205. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of tests: 283. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of tests: 502. 

Source: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section data on housing testing. 

[End of figure] 

Nine of the Section's 20 testing cases involved allegations of 
discrimination on the basis of disability in new construction, rentals, 
or both; 7 involved race discrimination against African Americans in 
rentals or public accommodations; 5 involved familial status 
discrimination in rentals, of which 2 additionally involved 
discrimination against African Americans or African Americans; and 1 
involved discrimination on the basis of national origin/ethnicity in 
rentals.[Footnote 95] As shown in table 18, the Section filed 9 of the 
20 cases, including four of the five new construction cases, from 
fiscal years 2001 to 2002, filed 1 to 2 cases per year from fiscal 
years 2003 through 2006 and 4 cases in fiscal year 2007. 

Table 18: Bases of claims and issues for HCE testing program cases 
filed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007: 

Statue: FHA; 
Issue: New Construction Rental; 
Basis of Discrimination: Disability; 
FY 2001: 3; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 4. 

Statue: FHA; 
Issue: New Construction Sales; 
Basis of Discrimination: Disability; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Statue: FHA; 
Issue: Rental; 
Basis of Discrimination: Disability; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: 1; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Total: 4. 

Statue: FHA; 
Issue: Rental; 
Basis of Discrimination: Family; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 3. 

Statue: FHA; 
Issue: Rental; 
Basis of Discrimination: Family and Race - African American; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 2; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Statue: FHA; 
Issue: Rental; 
Basis of Discrimination: National Origin/Ethnicity - Other; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Total: 1. 

Statue: FHA; 
Issue: Rental; 
Basis of Discrimination: Race - African American; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: 1; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 3. 

Statue: Title II; 
Issue: Public Accommodations; 
Basis of Discrimination: Race - African American; 
FY 2001: 1; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: 1; 
FY 2005: [Empty]; 
FY 2006: [Empty]; 
FY 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Total; 
FY 2001: 5; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 2; 
FY 2004: 2; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: 2; 
FY 2007: 4; 
Total: 20. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

According to the Division's fiscal year 2005 budget submission, the 
Section's ability to identify patterns and practices of discrimination 
against persons with disabilities through testing had been reduced 
during fiscal year 2003 when the Immigration and Naturalization 
Services was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, as 
many experienced and trained DOJ testers were Immigration and 
Naturalization Services employees. In 2006, the Attorney General 
initiated Operation Home Sweet Home to ensure equal access to housing 
by expanding and targeting the Division's fair housing testing program. 
[Footnote 96] Housing Section officials stated that Operation Home 
Sweet Home has resulted in an increase in the quantity and quality of 
testing. 

The Section Filed Cases Under ECOA, RLUIPA and Title II: 

The Housing Section filed a total of 26 cases pursuant to ECOA, RLUIPA 
and Title II. All 9 ECOA complaints, 5 of which were in combination 
with the FHA, involved lending issues. Seven of the 9 complaints 
included at least one allegation of racial discrimination and 4 
included at least one allegation of discrimination on the basis of 
national origin/ethnicity.[Footnote 97] For example, in October 2006, 
the Section filed a complaint alleging that a bank was in violation of 
ECOA and the FHA for discriminating on the basis of race and national 
origin by, among other things, placing branch offices and providing 
banking and lending services to meet the banking and credit needs in 
majority White areas, but not areas where minorities comprised the 
majority of the population. The Section filed 5 complaints pursuant to 
RLUIPA, 1 in combination with FHA. All of the RLUIPA complaints 
involved discrimination based on religion and the issue of land use/ 
zoning/local government. The Section also filed 12 public accommodation 
complaints under Title II, all of which involved at least 1 allegation 
of racial discrimination, national origin/ethnicity discrimination, or 
both. 

The Voting Section Initiated Matters and Filed Cases Primarily under 
the Voting Rights Act on Behalf of Language Minority Groups, and 
Devoted the Greatest Proportion of Its Time to Reviews of Changes in 
Voting Practices and Procedures: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section was responsible 
for enforcing federal statutes that protect the voting rights of racial 
and language minorities, disabled and illiterate persons, and overseas 
and military personnel. During the 7-year period, the Section initiated 
more matters (367 of 442) and cases (39 of 56) under the Voting Rights 
Act than the other statutes it enforced, and primarily on behalf of 
language minority groups (246 of 367 matters and 30 of 56 cases). 
According to aggregate time data for the 7-year period, the Voting 
Section spent the greatest total percentage of time (52 percent) on 
administrative reviews of proposed changes in the voting practices and 
procedures of certain jurisdictions covered under section 5 of the VRA, 
such as a proposed redistricting plan--which would make changes to the 
geographic boundaries of voting districts--or the relocation of a 
polling place, as compared with cases (33 percent) or matters (14 
percent). 

The Voting Section Had Various Statutory Responsibilities from Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2007: 

The Voting Section has responsibility for the enforcement of federal 
voting rights statutes, including provisions designed to safeguard the 
right to vote of racial and language minorities, disabled and 
illiterate persons, and overseas and military personnel. The Section 
undertook its statutory responsibilities on behalf of specific 
protected classes, for example, ensuring that certain jurisdictions 
provide voting materials in the languages of certain language minority 
groups as well as in English. In addition, the Section enforced 
provisions that are to protect voters in general, such as the 
requirement that states provide provisional ballots to voters in 
federal elections who claim to be eligible and registered to vote, but 
whose names do not appear on the polling place register. From fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007, the Section enforced the Voting Rights Act 
(VRA); the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); the Uniformed and 
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); and beginning in fiscal 
year 2002, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Table 19 presents 
responsibilities of the Voting Section by statute and provision. 
Appendix IV provides additional information about each statute enforced 
by the Voting Section. 

Table 19: Statutory provisions enforced by the Voting Section from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007: 

Statutory provision: Section 2 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973; 
Description of responsibilities: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 
prohibits discriminatory procedures or practices that result in a 
denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, color, or 
membership in a language minority group. Section 2 prohibits not only 
voting practices and procedures that are intended to discriminate 
against these protected classes, but also those practices and 
procedures that have a discriminatory impact. 

Statutory provision: Sections 203, 4(f)(4) and 4(e), of the VRA, 42 
U.S.C. §§ 1973aa-1a, 1973b(f)(4), 1973b(e); 
Description of responsibilities: Collectively known as the "language 
minority provisions" of the Voting Rights Act, sections 203 and 4(f)(4) 
are to enable members of applicable language minority groups to 
participate effectively in the electoral process; thus, covered 
jurisdictions must provide registration and voting materials in the 
language of the applicable minority group, in addition to English, or, 
in certain instances, provide oral instructions. Section 4(e) prohibits 
states from denying the right to vote on the basis of English 
proficiency to those who were educated in public or accredited private 
schools in which the predominant classroom language was other than 
English. 

Statutory provision: Section 208 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-6; 
Description of responsibilities: Section 208 allows any voter who 
requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or 
inability to read or write to be given assistance generally by a person 
of the voter's choice. 

Statutory provision: Section 5 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.; 
Description of responsibilities: Under Section 5, state and local 
jurisdictions in certain parts of the country may not change their 
election practices or procedures, which include moving a polling place 
or changing district lines in the county, until they obtain federal 
"preclearance" that the change has neither the purpose nor the effect 
of discriminating against protected minorities in exercising their 
voting rights. Preclearance may be obtained either from the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney 
General. 

Statutory provision: Section 4 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973b; 
Description of responsibilities: Section 4 of the VRA provides for 
jurisdictions to terminate or "bailout" from the requirements of 
section 5, if determined by a three-judge panel of the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia to meet certain statutory 
standards. The Attorney General is authorized to consent to an entry of 
judgment granting the bailout. 

Statutory provision: Section 11(b) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b); 
Description of responsibilities: Section 11(b) prohibits persons, 
whether or not they are acting on behalf of the government, from 
intimidating, threatening, or coercing, or attempting to do so, any 
person for voting or attempting to vote. It further prohibits 
intimidation, threats, or coercion of persons aiding others in voting 
or exercising certain powers or duties under the VRA. 

Statutory provision: Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 
15301-545; 
Description of responsibilities: HAVA established requirements related 
to voting system standards, provisional voting and voting information, 
and computerized statewide voter registration lists to be enforced by 
the Attorney General. 

Statutory provision: National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 
U.S.C. §§ 1973gg -1973gg-10; 
Description of responsibilities: The NVRA requires states to adopt 
certain federal voter registration procedures and contains detailed 
requirements regarding state removal of names from federal registration 
rolls. The NVRA requires states to have a program to remove ineligible 
voters from voter rolls, but also requires that such list maintenance 
programs incorporate specific safeguards. 

Statutory provision: Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
Act (UOCAVA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff -1973ff-6; 
Description of responsibilities: UOCAVA requires states and territories 
to allow absent uniformed services voters and their spouses or 
dependents, as well as overseas voters, to register and vote absentee 
in federal elections. 

Source: GAO summary of federal statutes. 

[End of table] 

The Voting Section has the discretion to initiate a matter or pursue a 
case under all of its statutes, with the exception of the review of 
changes in voting practices or procedures, which it is statutorily 
required to conduct under section 5 of the VRA.[Footnote 98],[Footnote 
99] According to Section officials, the Section identifies possible 
violations of the statutes it enforces from allegations of 
discriminatory practices that it receives from citizens, as well as 
advocacy and community organizations, members of Congress, and U.S. 
Attorney's Offices; by staff reviewing news articles; and through the 
Section's election monitoring efforts.[Footnote 100] They noted that 
during the 7-year period, as compared to prior years, the Section had 
received complaints from a broader range of racial and ethnic groups 
and a consortium of civil rights organizations that monitor polling 
places during elections. Section and Division officials identified 
shifts in the Section's priorities beginning in 2002. In October 2007, 
the Section Chief who served from 2005 through late 2007 told us that 
the Voting Section was focused on enforcing all of the statutes for 
which it was responsible, rather than any provision in particular. He 
further stated that while at-large election systems that discriminated 
against African Americans remained a priority of the Section, not many 
of these systems continued to discriminate, and new tensions over 
immigration had emerged; therefore, the Section had been pursuing cases 
of voting discrimination against citizens of other minority groups. 
[Footnote 101] However, in September 2009, Voting Section officials 
stated that while many at-large election systems that diluted minority 
voting strength have been successfully challenged, the Section 
continued to identify such systems that discriminate against African 
American, Hispanic, and Native American residents in jurisdictions 
throughout the country and that taking action against at-large election 
systems remained a high priority for the Section. They also stated that 
the Section had as a priority the enforcement of all the statutes for 
which it was responsible throughout the period of our review. In July 
2007, the Assistant Attorney General stated that since 2002, the 
Section had increased its enforcement of the minority language 
provisions of the VRA and in 2002 had instituted the most vigorous 
outreach efforts to jurisdictions covered by the minority language 
provisions of the Act. Additionally, the Acting Assistant Attorney 
General reported in September 2008 that the Division had brought more 
cases under the VRA's minority language provisions during the past 7 
years than in all other years combined since 1975. 

The Voting Section Initiated More Matters under the VRA than Other 
Statutes and Primarily on Behalf of Language Minority Groups: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 442 
matters, over 80 percent (367 of 442) of which involved allegations 
under the VRA.[Footnote 102] Although the number of matters initiated 
each fiscal year fluctuated, the largest number of matters initiated 
consistently involved the enforcement of VRA provisions, increasing in 
fiscal year 2003 to its highest level (136 of 367) and then generally 
declining. Section officials explained that, generally, fluctuation 
from year to year in terms of the number of matters initiated under any 
of the statutes enforced by the Section is a normal occurrence; 
however, certain occurrences and initiatives of the Section, described 
as applicable below, may affect the distribution of cases over time. 
Table 20 shows the number of matters initiated by the Voting Section 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Table 20: Matters initiated by the Voting Section from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007 by statute. 

Statute: VRA; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 52; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 69; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 136; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 38; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 29; 
Total: 361. 

Statute: HAVA; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 25. 

Statute: HAVA/NVRA; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Statute: HAVA/VRA; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 2; 
Total: 3. 

Statute: NVRA; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Total: 20. 

Statute: NVRA/VRA; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 3. 

Statute: UOCAVA; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 5; 
Total: 24. 

Statute: Other[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 5. 

Statute: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 62; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 141; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 47; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 32; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 51; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 37; 
Total: 442. 

Source: GAO analysis of VOT aggregate matter data. 

[A] Other includes one matter involving a challenge to the 
constitutionality of UOCAVA; a project to post on the Section's web 
site information on the rules for restoring the rights for ex-felons; 
and matters pursuant to the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 
Handicapped Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ee to 1973ee-6, which, with 
certain exceptions, requires that for federal elections polling places 
and registration facilities be accessible to handicapped and elderly 
voters and states make available registration and voting aids for 
handicapped and elderly individuals. 

[End of table] 

As shown in Figure 3, over half (246 of 442) of all matters initiated 
during the 7-year period were on behalf of language minority 
groups.[Footnote 103] The Section initiated the largest number of these 
matters in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 (52 and 117, respectively), which 
constituted almost 70 percent (169 of 246) of all matters initiated on 
behalf of language minority groups. Section officials explained that 
while the Section's work is for the most part driven by information 
received from various sources, the likely explanation for the increased 
number of matters on behalf of language minority groups was, in part, 
due to increased Section activity following the renewed 2002 
determinations of the Director of the Bureau of the Census regarding 
jurisdictions covered by section 203 of the VRA.[Footnote 104] 
Following the coverage determinations, the Section, in the latter part 
of 2002 and in 2003, initiated investigations of newly covered 
jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the law's requirements. In 
addition, around the same time period, the Section had an initiative to 
investigate at-large elections in numerous jurisdictions, particularly 
in California, many of which had experienced significant minority 
population growth. 

Figure 3: Language Minority Matters Compared with All Matters Initiated 
by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
All matters: 62; 
Language minority: 13. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
All matters: 72; 
Language minority: 52. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
All matters: 141; 
Language minority: 117. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
All matters: 47; 
Language minority: 24. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
All matters: 32; 
Language minority: 13. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
All matters: 51; 
Language minority: 12. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
All matters: 37; 
Language minority: 15. 

Total; 
All matters: 442; 
Language minority: 246. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of figure] 

The Majority of Matters Initiated on Behalf of Language Minority Groups 
Involved Spanish Speakers: 

Over 80 percent (203 of 246) of the language minority matters involved 
Spanish speakers; approximately 16 percent involved Native Americans or 
Alaska Natives (39 of 246); and about 9 percent involved Asian language 
speakers (21 of 246).[Footnote 105] As shown in table 21, about half of 
the matters involving Spanish and Native Americans voters were 
initiated in fiscal year 2003, which officials explained was, in part, 
as a result of the post-Census initiative described above. 

Table 21: Matters initiated on behalf of language minorities by fiscal 
year. 

Protected Class: Chinese; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Chinese/Other Asian; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Chinese/Spanish; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 1; 
Total: 6. 

Protected Class: Chinese/Other Asian/Spanish/Vietnamese; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Native American; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 5; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 20; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 1; 
Total: 33. 

Protected Class: Native American/Spanish; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 6. 

Protected Class: Other Asian; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 2; 
Total: 6. 

Protected Class: Other Asian/Spanish; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 1; 
Total: 4. 

Protected Class: Spanish; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 6; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 46; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 84; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 17; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 10; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 7; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 9; 
Total: 179. 

Protected Class: Spanish/Race - African American; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 3. 

Protected Class: Spanish/Race - Hispanic; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Spanish/Race - Asian; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Vietnamese/Race - African American; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 1; 
Total: 1. 

Total: 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 13; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 52; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 117; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 24; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 13; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 12; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 15; 
Total: 246. 

Source GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

Almost seventy percent (171 of 246) of the matters initiated on behalf 
of language minorities were under the VRA's language minority 
provisions that require covered jurisdictions to provide bilingual 
written materials and other assistance for elections (e.g., ballots) in 
the language of the applicable minority group or oral instructions in 
the case of Alaska Natives or American Indians.[Footnote 103] For 
example, in one matter, the Section requested and received from the 
official responsible for administering elections copies of bilingual 
materials for a general election to determine whether a jurisdiction 
was in compliance with section 203. Matters initiated on behalf of 
language minorities also involved claims under other VRA provisions-- 
about 80 matters under section 2 of the VRA[Footnote 107] and 8 
alleging intimidation.[Footnote 108] 

About Half of the Matters Initiated under Section 2 of the VRA Involved 
Language Minority Groups and About Half Involved Racial Minority 
Groups: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 162 
matters under section 2 of the VRA--about 80 involving a language 
minority group and 88 involving a racial minority group.[Footnote 109] 
As shown in Table 22, the majority (71 of 80) of the section 2 language 
minority matters were initiated on behalf of Spanish speakers. The 
largest number (71 of 88) of matters initiated on behalf of racial 
minorities involved African American voters. Table 4 shows the number 
of matters that the Voting Section initiated under section 2 of the VRA 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, by protected class. 

Table 22: Section 2 matters initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007, by protected class: 

Protected Class: Language Minority; Spanish; 
Total: 64. 

Protected Class: Language Minority; Native American; 
Total: 6. 

Protected Class: Language Minority; Native American/Spanish; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Language Minority; Asian; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Language Minority; Total; 
Total: 73. 

Protected Class: Race; African American; 
Total: 64. 

Protected Class: Race; Asian; 
Total: 6. 

Protected Class: Race; Hispanic; 
Total: 4. 

Protected Class: Race; American Indian/Alaska Native; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Race; African American/Hispanic; 
Total: 3. 

Protected Class: Race; African American/White; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Race; Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Race; Total; 
Total: 81. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; Language Minority-
Spanish/Race-Hispanic; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; Language Minority - 
Spanish/Race - African American; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; Language Minority - 
Spanish/Race - Asian; 
Total: 2. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; Language Minority - 
Vietnamese Race - African American; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; Total; 
Total: 7. 

Protected Class: Voters[A]; 
Total: 1. 

Grand Total: 
Total: 162. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[A] Specific protected class was not identified. 

[End of table] 

Most of the section 2 matters were initiated in fiscal years 2001 
through 2003 (121/162). Section officials reported that the larger 
number of section 2 matters in 2001 can likely be attributed to a 
highly contested and controversial Presidential election occurring in 
November 2000, which gave rise to an abnormally high number of election-
related complaints to DOJ. In addition, as noted above, Section 
officials reported that the Section had developed a section 2 
initiative in the latter part of fiscal year 2002 and in 2003 to 
investigate at-large elections in numerous jurisdictions where African 
American or Hispanic population growth had occurred. Figure 4 shows the 
number of section 2 matters initiated in each of fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. 

Figure 4: Number of VRA Section 2 Matters Filed by the Voting Section 
for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Matters: 37. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Matters: 13. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Matters: 71. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Matters: 9. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Matters: 9. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Matters: 7. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Matters: 16. 

Total: 
Matters: 162. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in table 23, the 162 matters initiated under section 2 
involved three issues--at-large methods of election (103 of 162), 
"other dilution" (12 of 162), and other practices prohibited under 
section 2 (47 of 162), which are described below. The relative 
proportion of matters involving language minority groups as compared 
with racial minority groups varied by issue. 

Table 23: Matters initiated by the Voting Section under VRA Section 2 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by subject: 

VRA Provision: Section 2 - At Large[A]; 

Protected Class: Language Minority; Total: 60. 

Protected Class: Race; 
Total: 39. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; Total: 4. 

Section 2 - At Large Total; 
Total: 103. 

VRA Provision: Section 2 - Other Dilution; 

Protected Class: Race; 
Total: 7. 

Protected Class: Language Minority; 
Total: 3. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; 
Total: 2. 

Section 2 - Other Dilution Total; 
Total: 12. 

VRA Provision: Section 2 - Other; 

Protected Class: Race; 
Total: 35. 

Protected Class: Language Minority; 
Total: 10. 

Protected Class: Language Minority and Race; 
Total: 1. 

Protected Class: Voters; 
Total: 1. 

Section 2 - Other Total; 
Total: 47. 

Grand Total; 
Total: 162. 

Source GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[A] Section officials, noted, however, that most of the matters opened 
for investigations of at-large elections involving Hispanic voters were 
designated under the protected class of "language minority - Spanish," 
whereas now, the Section uses the racial category of Hispanic in order 
to distinguish these matters from the bilingual minority language 
matters. 

[End of table] 

About 64 percent (103 of 162) of the section 2 matters involved at- 
large methods of election.[Footnote 110] About 62 percent (64 of 103) 
of these at-large matters were initiated on behalf of language 
minorities and about 42 percent (43 of 103) were initiated on behalf of 
racial minorities, including 4 matters involving both racial and 
language minorities. For example, in one matter, the Section initiated 
an investigation to determine whether there was cause to believe that 
the at-large method of election for a city council diluted Hispanic 
voting strength in violation of section 2. Matters that the Section 
characterizes as "section 2--other dilution" are similar to the at- 
large matters in that they involve allegations that the method of 
election or election plan--other than an at-large election system-- 
denies members of the protected class an opportunity to participate in 
the political process and elect representatives of their choice equal 
to other members of the electorate. For example, according to Section 
officials, such matters may involve a challenge to a jurisdiction's 
redistricting plan. The Section initiated 12 of these matters--7 on 
behalf of racial groups, 3 on behalf of language minorities, and 2 
involving both racial and language minorities. Section officials 
reported that they would expect to see the large majority of their 
section 2 work involving voting practices such as at-large and other 
dilutive methods of election. 

In addition, the Voting Section initiated 47 (of 162) section 2 matters 
challenging practices other than a method of election, such as voting 
qualifications that deny or abridge the rights of protected groups, 
discriminatory voting registration procedures, or election-day 
practices that have a "disparate impact" (i.e., a greater impact on one 
group of voters than other groups). For example, one matter involved 
allegations that African American students at a college and a 
university faced discriminatory treatment in the registration process 
for the 2000 Presidential election. A second matter involved 
allegations from a citizen that city officials had discriminated 
against a Hispanic candidate for city council by invalidating her 
filing forms while accepting similar forms from another candidate and 
had instructed voters during an election not to vote for "the Mexican." 
Thirty-five of these (47) matters were initiated on behalf of racial 
minority groups of which 31 involved African Americans, 10 were on 
behalf of language minority groups, and 1 included both language 
minority and racial groups.[Footnote 111] Section officials told us 
that these types of claims often grow out of section 203 language 
minority investigations, and are not always reflected in ICM data. 

The Section Initiated Matters Under VRA's Intimidation Provision, as 
well as Under HAVA, the NVRA and UOCAVA: 

The Section also initiated 27 matters, referred to as intimidation 
matters, under the provision of the VRA that prohibits persons, whether 
or not they are acting on behalf of the government, from, among other 
things, intimidating or threatening anyone for voting or anyone who is 
aiding others in voting.[Footnote 112] These matters primarily involved 
the intimidation of persons belong to racial groups--African Americans 
(16), Whites (2), Hispanics (1). Eight involved language minorities. 
[Footnote 113] 

In addition to the VRA, the Voting Section initiated 76 matters under 
HAVA, NVRA, and UOCAVA on behalf of voters. The Section initiated 29 
matters involving HAVA provisions in fiscal years 2005 through 
2007.[Footnote 114] About two-thirds of the HAVA matters (19 of 29) 
involved issues related to HAVA's voter list requirements, which refers 
to the computerized statewide voter registration list required by 
section 303(a) of HAVA. For example, the Section initiated one HAVA 
matter when several organizations brought a lawsuit alleging that a 
state had violated HAVA and other federal law in the operation of its 
computerized voter registration database. The state filed a motion in 
court seeking to add the United States as a defendant, which the 
Section successfully opposed in court because the United States was not 
a necessary party. Section officials explained that the largest number 
(20 of 29) of HAVA matters was initiated in fiscal year 2006 because 
the HAVA voting systems standards requirements went into effect on 
January 1, 2006, and the computerized statewide voter registration list 
requirements became effective for most states that had applied for a 
waiver on January 1, 2006 as well. Section officials told us that for a 
time prior to and following the January 1, 2006 deadline, the Section 
was engaged in extensive investigation efforts to determine states' 
compliance with the law. Section officials reported that most of the 
issues that arose with the states with regard to compliance were 
resolved cooperatively without resort to litigation. 

The Section also initiated 24 matters under the NVRA. These matters 
either involved issues related to the requirement to remove voters from 
registration lists under specified conditions--known as "purge" cases 
(11)--or issues related to the registration of voters (6).[Footnote 
115],[Footnote 116] For example, in one NVRA matter, the Section 
investigated a citizen's allegations that a newspaper had improperly 
published about 50,000 names of inactive voters and had reported that 
these voters were subject to removal from the registration list unless 
action was taken. 

In addition, the Voting Section initiated 24 matters under UOCAVA. For 
example, in one matter, the State Supreme Court had issued an order 
staying the distribution of ballots to overseas voters pending the 
outcome of litigation regarding the appearance of certain candidates on 
the ballot. The Section wrote a letter to the State Attorney General 
expressing concerns regarding potential violations of UOCAVA’s mailing 
requirements. Because UOCAVA only applies to federal elections, Section 
officials explained that, typically, more matters are initiated during 
federal election years; however, special elections to fill vacancies in 
congressional seats occasionally arise in odd-numbered years as well, 
which have resulted in UOCAVA matters. According to Section officials, 
the number of UOCAVA matters initiated was the highest in fiscal year 
2006 (9 of 24) because after a UOCAVA case involving run-off elections 
in Georgia, they sought to identify other states where the statutory 
timetables for primary run-off elections did not permit enough time for 
overseas balloting. (Appendix IV provides information on the reasons 
why the Voting Section closed matters.[Footnote 117]) 

Similar to Matters, the Voting Section Filed More Cases under the VRA 
than Other Statutes and Primarily on Behalf of Language Minority 
Groups: 

During the 7-year period, the Voting Section filed 56 cases, primarily 
under the VRA and on behalf of language minority groups. The Section 
also participated in 33 cases as plaintiff-intervenor (1), amicus (2), 
or defendant (30); handled 19 Immigration and Nationality Act appeals 
for DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation in fiscal years 2006 and 
2007; and continued to participate in approximately 25 cases in which 
the complaint or brief had been filed prior to 2001, but remained open 
for at least part of the 7-year period. Appendix IV provides 
information on these cases. According to Section officials, the Section 
typically pursued cases that address systemic problems, similar to 
pattern or practice cases in the Employment Litigation and Housing and 
Civil Enforcement Sections, involving larger and more complex issues 
than a single act of discrimination. They said that an at-large method 
of election is the most systemic type of method the Section might 
attempt to change, but other practices may also have a systemic effect. 
For example, the use of racial slurs by pollworkers, if not an isolated 
instance, may create a hostile environment for minority voters in a 
polling place. Section officials further stated that the failure of 
local officials to take corrective actions can also tend to make a 
practice more systemic. The Section Chief from 2005 through 2007 told 
us that when deciding whether to pursue a case, the Section considered 
legal merit, available section resources, timing, whether the issue was 
a priority of the Attorney General, and whether the Section could win 
the case.[Footnote 118] 

As shown in table 24, approximately two-thirds (39) of the 56 plaintiff 
cases filed by the Voting Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 
included a claim under the VRA. Almost half (27 of 56) of these cases 
were filed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

Table 24: Voting cases filed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by 
statute: 

Statutes: VRA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 4; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 4; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 7; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 6; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 8; 
Total: 33. 

Statutes: HAVA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 2. 

Statutes: HAVA/NVRA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 1; 
Total: 2. 

Statutes: HAVA/NVRA/VRA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 2; 
Total: 2. 

Statutes: HAVA/VRA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 1; 
Total: 4. 

Statutes: NVRA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 6. 

Statutes: UOCAVA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Total: 7. 

Statutes: Total; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 8; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 9; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 8; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 15; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 12; 
Total: 56. 

Source GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

The Majority of Cases Filed on Behalf of Language Minority Groups 
Involved Spanish Speakers: 

The majority of cases (30 of 56) filed were brought on behalf of 
language minorities. Twenty-seven of these cases involved claims on 
behalf of Spanish-speakers. Six cases involved claims on behalf of 
other language minority groups, including Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, 
Creole, and Tagalog speakers and Native Americans.[Footnote 119] While 
cases involving language minority groups were filed under various 
provisions of the VRA, the largest number of cases (24 of 30) involved 
claims under section 203 of the VRA alleging that the covered 
jurisdiction had failed to provide voting-related materials or 
information relating to the electoral process in the language of the 
applicable minority group. For example, in one section 203 case, the 
Section alleged that, in conducting elections, a city, where over 46 
percent of the total citizen voting age population was Hispanic, had 
failed to translate fully into Spanish written election-day materials 
and information, such as the official ballot, forms for voters with 
disabilities, and signs identifying a polling place's location, among 
others. 

Other provisions under which the section filed cases on behalf of 
language minorities included section 4(f)(4) of the VRA (3 of 30)--
which contains the same requirements for covered jurisdictions to 
provide voting-related materials and information in languages other 
than English--and section 208 of the VRA(9/30)--which entitles voters 
who are blind, disabled, or unable to read or write to be assisted in 
voting by a person of their choosing. All of the cases the Section 
filed under section 208 were on behalf of language minorities. Section 
officials explained that when the Section monitored elections to 
determine if jurisdictions were providing effective language 
assistance, monitors often discovered that in addition to inadequate 
bilingual assistance, the jurisdiction was also not permitting voting 
assistance to limited English proficient voters by a family member or 
other person of the voter's choosing. 

The Section filed five cases involving language minority groups 
pursuant to section 2.[Footnote 120] Four of these cases involved the 
denial or abridgment of the right to vote of Spanish speakers, one of 
which also involved Chinese and Vietnamese speakers. For example, one 
section 2 claim alleged that in conducting elections, city officials 
had treated limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American 
voters disrespectfully by, among other things, improperly influencing, 
coercing or ignoring their ballot choices and by refusing or failing to 
provide them provisional ballots. The fifth section 2 language minority 
case was filed on behalf of Native Americans.[Footnote 121] In 
September 2008, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights 
explained that, in many cases, violations of section 203 were 
accompanied by such overt discrimination by poll workers that section 2 
claims could have been brought as well. However, the Section had been 
able to obtain complete and comprehensive relief through its litigation 
and remedies under section 203 without the added expense and delay of a 
section 2 claim. 

Cases Filed under VRA Section 2 Primarily Involved Racial Minority 
Groups: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section filed 13 cases that 
involved a claim under section 2 of the VRA, as shown in table 25. 
[Footnote 122] Five cases were on behalf of language minority groups, 
as previously discussed, and 10 were on behalf of racial minority 
groups (two cases involved both racial and language minority groups). 
[Footnote 123] Section officials reported that their litigation is 
driven by the facts developed during investigations. They also stated 
that they were not aware of any specific reasons for distribution of 
section 2 cases filed by the Section among the various groups. 

Table 25: VRA Section 2 cases filed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 
by protected class. 

Protected Class: Language minority: Spanish; 
Number of cases: 1. 

Protected Class: Language minority: Spanish/Race: Hispanic; 
Number of cases: 2. 

Protected Class: Language minority: Spanish/Chinese/Vietnamese; 
Number of cases: 1. 

Protected Class: Language minority: Native American; 
Number of cases: 1. 

Protected Class: Race: Hispanic; 
Number of cases: 4. 

Protected Class: Race: African American; 
Number of cases: 3. 

Protected Class: Race: White; 
Number of cases: 1. 

Protected Class: Total; 
Number of cases: 13. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data and complaints filed. 

[End of table] 

Of the 10 cases filed on behalf of racial minorities, 6 were on behalf 
of Hispanic citizens.[Footnote 124] In 3 of these 6 cases, the Section 
challenged at-large methods of election, because the methods resulted 
in Hispanic citizens having less opportunity than other members of the 
electorate to participate in the political process and to elect 
representatives of their choice. In the remaining three cases, the 
Section alleged that other voting practices--such as hostile acts 
directed at Hispanic voters or requiring Hispanic voters to prove their 
citizenship without credible evidence calling into question their 
citizenship--were in violation of section 2. 

The Voting Section also brought three section 2 cases on behalf of 
African Americans; 2 were filed in fiscal year 2001 and one was filed 
in fiscal year 2006. All three cases challenged methods of election, 
alleging that the methods diluted the voting power of African American 
voters thus resulting in the denial of an opportunity equal to that 
afforded to other members of the electorate to participate in the 
political process and elect representatives of their choice. For 
example, in the 2006 case, the Section claimed that the method of 
electing the City Council, whereby the 5 members were elected at-large 
and 4 were elected by ward (i.e., from particular districts), diluted 
the voting strength of African American citizens. According to the 
complaint filed in court, although African Americans comprised nearly 
30 percent of the city's electorate and there had been eight recent 
African American candidates for the city council at the time the case 
was filed, not a single African American candidate had ever been 
elected to the nine-member city council or to any other city office. 
The complaint also alleged that the city could have used another method 
to divide the districts that would result in African American citizens 
constituting a majority of the total population and voting age 
population in two districts. 

The Section Also Filed One Intimidation Case on Behalf of White Voters: 

During the 7-year period, the Section filed one intimidation case on 
behalf of White voters in fiscal year 2005. According to Section 
officials, the case was initially investigated under section 2 of the 
VRA, but later included intimidation claims under section 11(b) of VRA. 
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had: 

* excluded Whites from participating in Democratic Executive Committee 
affairs by excluding them from Committee meetings relating to primary 
election matters and Democratic caucuses, 

* manipulated the voter registration rolls in an unlawful manner, by 
moving voters from one district to another in order to affect the 
racial percentages of voters in particular districts and in an attempt 
to alter the outcome in certain elections where African American and 
White candidates oppose each other, 

* systematically misapplied state absentee ballot procedures in a 
matter that had disproportionately burdened White voters and 
candidates, and; 

* announced in local newspapers that certain named White individuals 
would be prevented from voting and would not be welcome at the polls to 
vote in the Democratic Primary. 

In June 21, 2007, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the 
Assistant Attorney General stated that this case was unusual in that it 
was the most extreme case of racial exclusion seen by the Section in 
decades, the racial discrimination was directed against White citizens, 
and the Section was not aware of any other case in which the Section 
had to move for a protective order to prevent the intimidation of 
witnesses. 

The Voting Section Filed Cases Under HAVA, the NVRA and UOCAVA: 

Subsequent to HAVA's enactment in 2002, the Section filed ten cases 
involving its provisions from fiscal years 2004 through 2007.[Footnote 
125] Specifically, these ten cases involved allegations in five areas 
relating to statutory requirements under the law, including the failure 
to: 

(1) provide provisional ballots to voters in federal elections who 
claim to be eligible and registered to vote, but whose names do not 
appear on the polling place register; 

(2) comply with voter registration application-related requirements; 

(3) comply with requirements making voting more accessible, including 
the posting of voter information and the provision of voting systems 
that are accessible for individuals with disabilities and in 
alternative languages; 

(4) implement identification requirements for first-time voters who 
register by mail; and; 

(5) establish an official computerized statewide voter registration 
list. 

Most cases (7 of 10) involved issues related to making voting more 
accessible, Section officials explained that such cases were frequently 
filed against localities and were often based on evidence obtained 
during election day monitoring or other localized investigative 
activities. For example, election observation in a locality for 
minority language voting system requirement purposes might indicate 
that, at certain polling places, there was no voting system accessible 
to persons with disabilities or provisional voting was not implemented 
in accordance with HAVA. In one case filed by the Section, for example, 
the Section alleged that in the 2004 primary and general elections, 
defendant county officials had failed to post in each polling place all 
of the voting information required by HAVA, including information 
regarding the date of the election, federal and state voting laws, and 
requirements applicable to first-time voters who registered by mail. 
According to Section officials, they had sent officials in 50 states a 
letter explaining how to comply with HAVA and offered significant 
ongoing guidance on the law's requirements. 

During the 7-year period, the Section filed ten cases involving 
allegations under provisions of the NVRA.[Footnote 126] From fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007, the Section filed eight cases involving a 
purge-related claim and three cases involving the issue of voter 
registration.[Footnote 127] Purge cases may involve allegations that 
the state did not have a program to remove ineligible voters from voter 
rolls (i.e., a program of list maintenance, which is to ensure accurate 
and current voter registration rolls for elections). For example, in 
one case, the Section alleged that the state's failure to identify and 
remove ineligible voters from the registration list and ensure that 
local election jurisdictions had done so as well had resulted in 
counties with excessively high registration totals as compared to the 
voting age population in each county. Purge cases may also involve 
allegations that in conducting this required program of removing 
ineligible voters from the rolls, the state did not incorporate certain 
safeguards, thus unlawfully removing eligible voters from registration 
lists. In one instance, the Section filed a case alleging that a city's 
procedures with respect to its voter lists had placed so high a burden 
on certain voters that, for all practical purposes, they were prevented 
from voting on Election Day and effectively removed from the voter 
registration rolls in violation of the NVRA. Of the eight NRVA cases 
with purge-related claims, which the Voting Section filed during the 
period of our review, four cases involved claims that the jurisdiction 
had failed to conduct a program to remove ineligible voters from voter 
rolls, two involved claims that the jurisdiction unlawfully removed 
voters from the voter rolls, and two cases involved both types of 
claims. Section officials reported that during the time period of our 
review, the Assistant Attorney General had as a priority identifying 
list maintenance--i.e., purge--cases under the NRVA. They explained 
that the focus was on both ensuring states had a list maintenance 
program and that such programs incorporated required safeguards. 
However, investigations may focus on one or more aspects of the NVRA 
depending on the information received by the Section leading to the 
initiation of the investigation and the facts developed during the 
investigation. 

The Section also filed seven cases involving allegations under UOCAVA 
on behalf of overseas voters. In 2007, the Assistant Attorney General 
reported that UOCAVA remained a priority of the Section and stated that 
in calendar year 2006, the Voting Section had filed the largest number 
of cases under UOCAVA in any year since 1992. Section officials 
explained that the incidence of UOCAVA cases in 2006 was the result of 
the Section's nationwide review of states with primary run-off 
elections, as described above. 

The Voting Section Engaged in Activities Under Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act: 

The Section also carried out its responsibilities under section 5 of 
VRA, which requires certain jurisdictions covered under the act to 
"preclear" changes to voting practices and procedures with DOJ or the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia to determine 
that the change has neither the purpose nor the effect of 
discriminating against protected minorities in exercising their voting 
rights. As shown in table 26, from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the 
Voting Section received for administrative review 37,677 submissions-- 
containing 119,459 proposed changes--from jurisdictions required to 
preclear changes in voting practices and procedures under section 5 of 
the VRA. According to Voting Section officials, the Section analyzed 
and reviewed each submission, which, on average, included 4.5 changes. 
They said that proposed changes varied in complexity. For example, 
moving a single voting place or adding registration sites were simple 
changes, but state-wide redistricting changes were highly complex and 
required more time than other types of proposed changes. As shown in 
table 26, the number of section 5 submissions and the number of 
proposed changes received by the Section fluctuated during the 7-year 
period. The total number of submissions peaked in fiscal year 2006 at 
7,294, containing a total of 20,434 proposed changes, although the 
number of changes involving redistricting peaked (1,617) in fiscal year 
2002 and subsequently declined. Voting Section officials explained that 
most of the covered jurisdictions conduct their state and local 
elections as well as federal elections in even-numbered years (e.g., 
2002, 2004 and 2006). Accordingly, as these jurisdictions prepare to 
conduct the elections, they seek to implement a greater number of 
changes affecting voting than in years when they are not conducting 
elections, which accounts for the higher number of proposed changes in 
those years. Officials also explained that the number of redistricting 
plans submitted for review had increased early in the decade (2001- 
2003), following the release of the 2000 Census, as has occurred after 
each census. They reported that the Division usually provided 
additional staff to meet the increased work demands. Officials said 
that they expected a similar increase in the number of submissions 
following the 2010 census and hoped that they would receive additional 
staff; however, at the time of our review, they did not know whether 
such resources would be forthcoming.[Footnote 128] 

Table 26: Number of Section 5 submissions and changes received by the 
Voting Section during fiscal years 2001 through 2007: 

Number of submissions received: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 3,949; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 5,967; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 4,616; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 5,506; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 4,456; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 7,294; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 5,889; 
Fiscal year: Total: 37,677; 

Number of changes: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 12,458; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 20,145; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 15,166; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 18,279; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 13,210; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 20,434; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 19,767; 
Fiscal year: Total: 119,459. 

Source: GAO Analysis of STAPS data. 

[End of table] 

The Section reported that it made 42 objections to proposed changes; 
however, some objections addressed more than one proposed change. As 
shown in Table 27, almost 70 percent of the objections (29/42) involved 
changes to redistricting plans. However, the proposed changes to 
redistricting plans accounted for less than 3 percent (2,990 of 
119,459) of the overall changes submitted to the Section during the 7- 
year period. 

Table 27: Number of objections to Section 5 changes proposed during 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007: 

Type of change: Includes redistricting; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: Total: 29. 

Type of change: Other; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: Total: 13. 

Type of change: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 21; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 2; 
Fiscal year: Total: 42. 

Source: Original source is Voting Section website. Note: Some 
objections may involve multiple changes. 

[End of table] 

The Voting Section also initiated about 24 matters involving section 5 
of the VRA.[Footnote 129] Sixteen matters involved the enforcement of 
the preclearance requirement. For example, according to Section 
officials, the Section might initiate a matter to investigate a voting 
change that was not precleared or consider intervening in a private 
right of action seeking an injunction for a voting change that was not 
precleared. For 15 of these 16 matters, ICM data included information 
about the group or groups affected by the enforcement action--11 
involved African Americans, 4 involved the language minority group of 
Spanish speakers, 1 involved the racial minority group of Hispanics, 
and 1 involved White voters. An additional 4 matters involved issues 
related to the administrative section 5 preclearance process and were 
initiated on behalf of African Americans, one in conjunction with 
Hispanics. The Section officials explained that the Section would 
initiate this type of matter if an issue related to section 5 arose, 
but was not a formal section 5 submission or litigation to which the 
Section was a party. For example, prior to an expected statewide 
redistricting submission under section 5, which the Section anticipated 
to be complicated and resource and time-intensive, the Section might 
open a matter to prepare for the submission. An additional 3 matters 
involved issues related to jurisdictions that were required to preclear 
voting changes under section 5 and were seeking to obtain a judgment 
from the district court to be removed from coverage, referred to as a 
"bailout." Information on the affected groups was available for two of 
these matters--one involved the language minority group of Spanish 
speakers as well as Hispanics, and the other involved African 
Americans. 

In addition, the Voting Section filed one case to enforce the 
provisions of section 5 of the VRA. In that case, filed in fiscal year 
2006, the Section alleged that the jurisdiction had failed to obtain 
preclearance of a change to a practice or procedure affecting voting. 
The Voting Section identified the minority voters potentially affected 
by the voting change as African American and Hispanic voters. 

The Voting Section Devoted the Greatest Proportion of its Time to 
Reviews of Changes in Voting Practices and Procedures: 

As shown in Table 28, from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting 
Section reported spending the greatest total percentage of time (52 
percent) on administratively reviewing Section 5 preclearance 
submissions, as compared with cases (33 percent) or matters (14 
percent). 

Table 28: Percentage of time the Voting Section reported spending on 
cases, matters, and section 5 reviews from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007: 

Activity type: Cases; 
Percentage of total time: 33. 

Activity type: Matter; 
Percentage of total time: 14. 

Activity type: Section 5; 
Percentage of total time: 52. 

Activity type: Total; 
Percentage of total time: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data 

Note: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not 
sum to 100 due to rounding. Hours that provide the basis for the 
percentages include time of all Section staff, including section chief, 
deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, 
law clerks, and any staff unique to a section. 

[End of table] 

The proportion of the total time spent on the administrative reviews of 
voting changes generally decreased over the 7-year period. As shown in 
table 29, 40 percent of the total time was spent in fiscal years 2001 
and 2002; 70 percent was spent from fiscal years 2001 through 2004; and 
only 8 percent was spent in fiscal year 2007. As previously discussed, 
in the years immediately following a census the number of submissions 
for preclearing complex redistricting plans increases and then 
decreases over the 10-year period between each census. The fluctuation 
in the number of preclearance submissions over time corresponds with 
the changes in the time data. Appendix IV provides additional 
information on the time spent by the Section on cases and matters 
during the 7-year period. 

Table 29: Percentage of time reported spent on Section 5 reviews from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by fiscal year: 

Section 5 reviews: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 22; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 8; 
Fiscal year: Total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: 
Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not sum to 
100 due to rounding. Hours that provide the basis for the percentages 
include time of all Section staff, including section chief, deputies, 
special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law 
clerks, and any staff unique to a section. 

[End of table] 

The Special Litigation Section Primarily Investigated Matters and 
Participated in Cases Involving Institutional Conditions and Devoted 
the Greatest Percentage of Time to these Matters and Cases, as Compared 
with Its Other Areas of Responsibility: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section had 
four areas of statutory responsibility--institutional conditions, the 
conduct of law enforcement agencies, access to reproductive health 
facilities and places of worship, and the exercise of religious freedom 
of institutionalized persons--and initiated 693 matters and 
participated in 33 cases under federal statutes corresponding to these 
areas. Of the closed matters (544 of 693) initiated by the Section 
during the 7-year period, about 373 involved institutional conditions 
and 129 involved the conduct of law enforcement agencies, specifically 
allegations of police misconduct.[Footnote 130] During the 7-year 
period, the Section participated in 33 cases, the majority (27 of 33) 
of which involved institutional conditions. According to aggregate data 
on the time spent on matters and cases from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007, the Section reported devoting the greatest percentage of time to 
matters and cases involving institutional conditions, as compared with 
its other areas of responsibility. 

The Special Litigation Section Had Various Statutory Responsibilities 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section was 
responsible for the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes in 
four areas--institutional conditions, the conduct of law enforcement 
agencies, access to reproductive health facilities and places of 
religious worship, and the exercise of religious freedom of 
institutionalized persons. According to Special Litigation Section 
officials, the Section did not experience significant changes in its 
statutory responsibilities during the 7-year period. The primary 
statutes enforced by the Section were the Civil Rights of 
Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act (14141), Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE), 
and the provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 
Persons Act (RLUIPA) protecting the rights of free exercise of religion 
for institutionalized persons.[Footnote 131] A matter or a case might 
be pursued under more than one statute. For example, a matter 
concerning a prison or jail might involve allegations of egregious 
conditions, such as lack of medical care, and practices affecting the 
exercise of inmates' religious freedom in violation of CRIPA and 
RLUIPA, respectively. While Special Litigation Section officials 
reported that the Section had not undertaken any special initiatives 
during the 7-year period, they noted that institutional conditions in 
juvenile correctional facilities had been a priority of the Assistant 
Attorney General who headed the Division from August 2003 through June 
2005. Table 30 shows these responsibilities according to the statutory 
provisions and how they apply to various forms of discrimination and 
types of institutions. 

Table 30: Statutory provisions enforced by the Special Litigation 
Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007: 

Area of responsibility: Institutional conditions; 
Statutory provision: Civil Rights Of Institutionalized Persons Act 
(CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j; 
Description of responsibilities: CRIPA protects the constitutional and 
federal statutory rights of persons confined in certain institutions 
operated by, or on behalf of, state or local governments (e.g., 
facilities for persons with developmental disabilities, nursing homes, 
juvenile correctional facilities, and adult jails and prisons[A]) by 
providing the Attorney General with the authority to bring lawsuits 
where there is a pattern or practice of egregious and flagrant 
conditions that deprive institutionalized persons of their federal or 
constitutional rights. 

Area of responsibility: Institutional conditions; 
Statutory provision: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
(14141), 42 U.S.C. § 14141; 
Description of responsibilities: 14141 authorizes the Attorney General 
to bring suit when juvenile justice system administrators engage in a 
pattern or practice violating confined juveniles' constitutional or 
federal rights. 

Area of responsibility: Institutional conditions; 
Statutory provision: Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. §2000b; 
Description of responsibilities: Title III prohibits discrimination in 
public facilities on the basis of race, color, religion, or national 
origin. 

Area of responsibility: Conduct of law enforcement agencies; 
Statutory provision: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
(14141); 
Description of responsibilities: 14141 authorizes the Attorney General 
to bring suit where law enforcement agencies have engaged in a pattern 
or practice of conduct that violates federal law; 

Area of responsibility: Conduct of law enforcement agencies; 
Statutory provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 42 
U.S.C. § 3789d, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 
§ 2000d et seq- 
Description of responsibilities: Both statutes contain prohibitions on 
discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, or 
gender by law enforcement agencies receiving federal financial 
assistance. 

Area of responsibility: Access to reproductive health facilities and 
places of religious worship; 
Statutory provision: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE), 18 
U.S.C. § 248; 
Description of responsibilities: FACE prohibits the use or threats of 
force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates or interferes 
with a persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health 
services or to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom 
at a place of religious worship. 

Area of responsibility: Exercise of religious freedom of 
institutionalized persons; 
Statutory provision: Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act 
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1; 
Description of responsibilities: Section 3 of RLUIPA protects the 
rights of free exercise of religion for institutionalized persons, by 
prohibiting a state or local government from imposing a substantial 
burden on the religious exercise of an institutionalized person, unless 
the government can demonstrate that the imposition furthers a 
compelling interest and is the least restrictive means available to 
further that interest. 

Source: GAO review of federal laws. 

[A] With respect to prisons, jails, and correctional facilities, under 
CRIPA, the Section is authorized to seek relief for constitutional 
violations only. 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a). 

[End of table] 

The Special Litigation Section considered all of its work to be self- 
initiated because it had discretion under all the statutes it enforced 
to pursue or not to pursue an investigation or case. The Section could 
bring cases involving the exercise of religious freedom under RLUIPA 
and access to reproductive health facilities under FACE, on behalf of 
individuals. However, it was statutorily required to file only claims 
alleging a pattern or practice involving institutional conditions under 
CRIPA and 14141 and claims alleging police misconduct under 14141. 
According to Special Litigation Section officials, the Section received 
allegations of unlawful conditions, discrimination or misconduct by law 
enforcement from a variety of sources, including incarcerated persons, 
family members of institutionalized persons, members of Congress, 
advocacy groups, other federal agencies, states, and localities. 
[Footnote 132] Section attorneys also developed cases from information 
gathered from newspaper accounts or talking with representatives of 
advocacy groups, among other things. 

Unlike the other Sections, the Special Litigation Section always 
conducted a pre-investigation (also referred to as preliminary inquiry) 
prior to an investigation, which required the Assistant Attorney 
General's approval to proceed.[Footnote 133] Staff were to open a 
matter after spending more than 2 hours looking into an allegation, 
which demonstrated the Section's interest in pursuing the matter. 
Section officials said that these pre-investigations could be time- 
consuming to complete, especially those involving CRIPA or 14141, which 
require the Section to report on system allegations that suggest that 
egregious and flagrant conditions that deprive institutionalized 
persons of their constitutional or federal statutory rights or systemic 
problems (e.g., a department-wide practice of police officers using 
excessive force, not just an individual officer) might exist. They 
further explained that many pre-investigations did not progress to an 
investigation because the Special Litigation Section could not gather 
sufficient evidence to show a pattern or practice of unlawful 
conditions or conduct. According to Section officials, the Section 
expected its attorneys and investigators to conduct preliminary 
inquiries regularly to find new matters to investigate. However, when 
attorneys and investigators were involved in contested litigation, they 
primarily worked on the litigation and perhaps one or two ongoing cases 
or matters and were not expected to, nor did they typically, open new 
matters. Consequently, the Section opened fewer preliminary inquiries 
when it was engaged in active litigation. Officials also said that the 
Section experienced slight variations in the types of matters and cases 
it investigates in the normal course of business. Appendix V provides 
additional information on the statutes enforced by the Special 
Litigation Section. 

The Special Litigation Section Primarily Initiated Matters Involving 
Institutional Conditions and Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies: 

As shown in table 31, the Special Litigation Section initiated 693 
matters from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 under the statutes 
corresponding to its four areas of responsibility. Over 70 percent of 
all matters initiated (504 of 693) and the largest number of matters 
initiated each fiscal year involved institutional conditions. These 
matters most frequently alleged violations of CRIPA affecting 
institutionalized persons in a variety of types of facilities. Matters 
concerning prisons and jails could involve alleged violations of 14141 
or RLUIPA, sometimes in conjunction with alleged CRIPA violations. 
Matters concerning the administration of juvenile justice systems 
always involved allegations of violations of 14141. Over 20 percent of 
the matters initiated (158 of 693) concerned the conduct of law 
enforcement agencies and alleged police misconduct in violation of 
14141. The total number of matters initiated by the Section was highest 
in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and then generally declined.[Footnote 
134] According to Section officials, during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 
the Section was not involved in active litigation, but in the ensuing 
years it experienced increased case demands, possibly explaining the 
decline in the number of matters initiated.[Footnote 135] In addition, 
Section officials stated that fewer staff and resources were available 
in the later years, as the number of onboard Special Litigation staff--
attorneys, professional, and clerical--decreased in fiscal years 2005, 
2006, and 2007, from higher staff numbers in fiscal years 2003 and 
2004.[Footnote 136] 

Table 31: Matters initiated by the Special Litigation Section from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by fiscal year: 

Statute: Institutional conditions: CRIPA[A]; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 54; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 102; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 77; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 52; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 48; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 73; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 58; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 464. 

Statute: Institutional conditions: CRIPA and 14141[B]; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 9; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 4; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 4; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 20. 

Statute: Institutional conditions: CRIPA and ADA[C]; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 4; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 5; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 11. 

Statute: Institutional conditions: 14141[D]; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 6; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 2; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 9. 

Statute: Institutional conditions: Total; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 57; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 106; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 86; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 67; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 52; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 76; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 60; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 504. 

Statute: Conduct of law enforcement agencies: 14141; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 18; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 29; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 31; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 37; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 20; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 11; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 11; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 157. 

Statute: Conduct of law enforcement agencies: 14141 and Omnibus Crime 
Control Act; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 1. 

Statute: Conduct of law enforcement agencies: Total; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 18; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 29; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 31; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 38; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 20; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 11; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 11; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 158. 

Statute: Access to reproductive health facilities and places of 
religious worship: FACE; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 1. 

Statute: Access to reproductive health facilities and places of 
religious worship: Total; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 1. 

Statute: Exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons: 
RLUIPA; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 17; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 2; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 6; 
Total: 29. 

Statute: Exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons: 
RLUIPA and CRIPA[E]; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 1. 

Statute: Exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons: 
Total; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 17; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 3; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 6; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 30. 

Grand Total; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 75; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 139; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 134; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 106; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 75; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 87; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 77; 
Fiscal Year: Total: 693. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM aggregate matter data for fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. 

[A] Includes matters involving juvenile correctional facilities and 
juvenile justice administration, for which complaints, if filed, would 
be filed under 14141 rather than CRIPA. 

[B] Includes matters involving juvenile correctional facilities and the 
administration of juvenile justice systems. 

[C] Includes some, but not all matters, involving institutional 
conditions in facilities for persons with developmental disabilities 
and nursing homes. These matters involved the integration mandate 
provision of the Americans with Disability Act, also known as the 
Olmstead Initiative, after the Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., 
527 U.S. 581 (1999), which upheld the most integrated setting 
requirement of the ADA. That is, individuals are required to be moved 
out of unnecessary institutionalization into community-based living 
arrangements. 

[D] These 9 matters involved the administration of juvenile 
correctional systems within a state, not individual facilities. 

[E] Because protected class was identified as religion, similar to 
other RLUIPA matters, and not institutionalized persons, this matter 
was categorized under religious worship rather than institutional 
conditions. 

[End of table] 

The Largest Number of Closed Matters Involved Institutional Conditions 
in Various Types of Facilities and the Conduct of Law Enforcement 
Agencies: 

Because the work of the Special Litigation Section primarily involved 
enforcing statutes that protected the constitutional rights of persons 
confined in certain institutional facilities and prohibited misconduct 
by law enforcement agencies, analyzing the matter data in terms of the 
types of facility under investigation helped to describe the work of 
the Section during the 7-year period. Accordingly, we analyzed 
disaggregated and more detailed information about 544 of the 693 
matters initiated during the 7-year period and that the Section had 
closed as of August 8, 2008.[Footnote 133] The closed matter data 
included 521 pre-investigations and 23 authorized investigations. As 
presented in figure 5, our analysis showed that the largest number of 
closed matters (approximately 373 of the 544) for any of the Section's 
four areas of responsibility involved institutional conditions. Conduct 
by law enforcement agencies, specifically issues of police misconduct, 
comprised the second largest group of matters and the most frequently 
mentioned facility type--law enforcement agency (129 of 544).[Footnote 
134] Twenty four matters involved issues related to the exercise of 
religious freedom of institutionalized persons (e.g., denial of a 
special diet required for religious reasons) in prisons (18), jails 
(2), and jail-prisons (4).[Footnote 135], One matter involving access 
to reproductive health facilities was a pre-investigation of 
allegations of obstructive activities and property damage at a clinic. 
According to Section officials, during the 7-year period, the Section 
received few allegations of issues involving access to reproductive 
health care facilities--clinics--in violation of FACE. 

Figure 5: Matters Initiated and Closed by the Special Litigation 
Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Area of Responsibility: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Institutional conditions: 
Number: 373. 

Conduct of law enforcement agencies: 
Number: 129. 

Exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons: 
Number: 24. 

Access to reproductive health facilities: 
Number: 1. 

Other[A]: 
Number: 17. 

Note: The data analyzed included 544 matters initiated by the Special 
Litigation Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 and closed as of 
August 8, 2008. 

[A] Analyzing additional ICM fields, the 17 matters in the column--
"other" included: 5 involving access to court for juveniles; 1 
involving religious freedom, but the type of facility was not 
identified; 1 involving a nursing home; and 10 did identify the type of 
facility. 

[End of figure] 

Closed matters involving institutional conditions: 

The approximately 373 (of 544) closed matters involving institutional 
conditions included pre-investigations and investigations of diverse 
categories and different types of institutional facilities within each 
category--adult corrections (e.g., jails and prisons), health and 
social welfare (e.g., nursing homes, mental health facilities, 
facilities for persons with developmental disabilities, and group 
foster homes), and juvenile corrections (juvenile correctional 
facilities or entire juvenile correctional systems). According to 
Section officials, the Section usually investigated these matters under 
its CRIPA authority, but matters involving juvenile correctional 
facilities or systems and some matters involving prisons and jails were 
investigated under 14141. Officials further explained that in 
protecting the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons under 
the CRIPA statute, its mandate was to try to resolve problems, not 
necessarily to file a lawsuit.[Footnote 143] Consequently, the Section 
might resolve allegations of CRIPA violations through settlements or 
other agreements not filed in court, which then continued to be 
identified as a matter in ICM. Officials said that the Section also 
settled the vast majority of its jail, prison, and juvenile justice 
cases rather than going to court because of a provision in the Prison 
Litigation Reform Act enacted in 1996.[Footnote 144] This provision, 
which required a state to admit liability before a court could enter 
into a consent decree, made it difficult to file such cases since very 
few jurisdictions agreed to admit liability.[Footnote 145] When the 
Section did not file an agreement in court, the matter did not become a 
case and the Section's monitoring of compliance under the settlement 
agreement continued to be tracked in ICM as a matter. Table 32 shows 
the number of matters that the Section initiated from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007, which involved institutional conditions by category and 
facility type. 

Table 32: Number of Matters Initiated Involving Institutional 
Conditions from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Category and Facility 
Type: 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Jail; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 102. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Prison; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 80. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Jail/prison; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 1. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Total; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 183. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Nursing home; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 86. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Mental health facility; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 35. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Developmental disabilities facility; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 28. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Group foster home; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 1. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Total; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 150. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 
Facility type: Juvenile correctional facility; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 37. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 
Facility type: Administration of justice system; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 3. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 
Facility type: Total; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 40. 

Category: Grand Total; 
Number of closed matters[A]: 373. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[A] The data analyzed included 373 matters initiated by the Special 
Litigation Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 and closed as of 
August 8, 2008. 

[End of table] 

Nearly one-half (183 of 373) of the closed matters concerning 
institutional conditions involved adult correctional facilities--jails 
(102), prisons (80), and jail-prisons (1). Special Litigation Section 
officials said prisoners, more than any of the other populations that 
the Section serves, contacted the Section through letters and phone 
calls to advocate on behalf of conditions. In response to these 
communications, the Section would open a matter to pursue a pre- 
investigation, but if it could not find evidence of a pattern or 
practice, would subsequently close the matter. The Section investigated 
these matters under CRIPA (jails (98), prisons (78),[Footnote 146] jail-
prison (1)), 14141 (jails (2), prison (1)), or both statutes (jails 
(2), prison (1)). The allegations in these matters included: 

* inadequate medical care or diet and nutrition services for residents, 

* use of isolation or physical restraints, 

* coercive sexual misconduct by staff or peers perpetrated on detainees 
or inmates without consent, 

* inadequate protection of inmates or detainees from harm due to 
insufficient correctional staffing on cellblocks, 

* a systemic level of violence as a result of inmate-on-inmate fights, 
and: 

* overcrowding in the facility. 

The 80 closed prison matters included 75 pre-investigations and 5 
investigations. In 3 of the investigations, the parties agreed to a 
memorandum of understanding, which the Section monitored for compliance 
for several years before the matter was closed.[Footnote 147] The 
Section closed 2 investigations without further action. 

In addition, 150 closed matters (of 373) involved alleged violations of 
the civil rights of residents of health and social welfare facilities, 
including nursing homes (86), mental health facilities (35), facilities 
for persons with developmental disabilities (28), and group foster 
homes (1).[Footnote 148] The allegations that the Section investigated 
in these matters under its CRIPA authority included failure to provide 
adequate medical, mental health, and nursing care services to 
residents; staff's physical abuse of residents; and failure to properly 
supervise or care for a resident. Section officials estimated that 
approximately 90 percent of these matters involved the investigation of 
whether the jurisdiction was serving the residents in the most 
integrated setting appropriate to an individual resident's needs, as 
required by the Olmstead decision.[Footnote 149] Also related to the 
Section's Olmstead work were three (of 28) matters that involved 
inquiries about facilities for persons with developmental disabilities 
located in the community, which the Section initiated in fiscal year 
2004 to identify private lawsuits involving Olmstead-related issues in 
which the Section might join as an amicus curiae. Of the 150 closed 
matters, 143 were pre-investigations and 7 were authorized 
investigations--6 of nursing homes and 1 of a facility for persons with 
developmental disabilities. In two of the nursing home investigations, 
the parties reached an agreement that the Section monitored for 
compliance for a period before it closed the matter.[Footnote 150] 

Additionally, 40 closed matters (of 373) involved juvenile corrections--
conditions in juvenile correctional facilities (37) or the 
administration of juvenile justice systems (3).[Footnote 151] The 
Section initiated over half of these matters from fiscal years 2003 
through 2005, when a priority of the Assistant Attorney General was 
conditions in juvenile facilities. According to Section officials, 
although CRIPA and 14141 statutorily provided essentially the same 
protections for juveniles in correctional facilities, the Section filed 
complaints involving a juvenile correctional facility under its 14141 
authority. They explained that filing a case under CRIPA required the 
approval of the Attorney General, but doing so under 14141 did not. 
Nevertheless, the Section included these matters in its annual CRIPA 
report to Congress, as the Section considered them to be part of its 
CRIPA work, and recorded them in ICM under CRIPA to distinguish them 
from 14141 law enforcement matters. These matters included allegations 
such as failure to adequately provide services to residents (e.g., 
medical, psychological, psychiatric, substance abuse treatment, and 
special education), properly care for or supervise residents, or 
adequately protect residents with suicidal or self-harming behaviors. 
They also included allegations of physical abuse of residents, improper 
placement of residents in a locked room for a long period of time 
without access to adequate services, overcrowding, and insufficient 
numbers of professional staff to provide the services legally required 
in these facilities. Thirty-three of these 37 matters were pre- 
investigations and 4 were investigations. In 1 of the investigations, 
the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding, which the Section 
monitored for compliance for a period of time before closing the 
matter; 1 investigation was dismissed by the court at the request of 
the Special Litigation Section when the facility closed; and the 
Section closed 2 matters. In addition, under its 14141 authority, the 
Section initiated 3 matters involving the administration of juvenile 
justice in jurisdictions to determine whether there was a pattern or 
practice of violating the federal rights of incarcerated juveniles. 
These matters were not linked to a specific facility, but concerned 
systemwide issues across a jurisdiction (e.g., a state juvenile 
corrections system). Two of these matters were pre-investigations, 
which were closed, and 1 matter was an investigation that was resolved 
by the parties agreeing to a memorandum of understanding. 

Closed matters involving the conduct of law enforcement agencies: 

Matters involving law enforcement agencies comprised the second largest 
group and the most frequently reported facility type for closed matters 
(129 of 544). These closed matters included 123 pre-investigations and 
6 investigations. For its police misconduct work, the Section 
identified in ICM specific police-related subjects for investigations, 
including police use of excessive force (i.e., more than necessary to 
subdue a citizen), police-false arrest of citizens for pretextual 
reasons that have no basis in fact, searching and seizing of property 
by police officers in ways that violate the law, and other forms of 
discriminatory policing unlawful under 14141. (Appendix V includes 
additional information on these subjects.[Footnote 153]) 

According to the Section, the Division considered an investigation 
resolved when the Section secured a settlement agreement that addressed 
the concerns uncovered during the investigation. Once the Section 
secured a settlement, the matter remained open for ongoing monitoring 
and compliance until the jurisdiction successfully satisfied the terms 
of the settlement. At that time, the Division officially closed the 
matter. The six investigations identified in the closed matter data 
were initiated in fiscal years 2001 (2), 2002 (3), and 2003 (1). 
[Footnote 152] Two of the investigations were resolved by the parties 
agreeing to a memorandum of agreement, monitored for compliance for a 
period, and then closed. Section officials provided additional 
information on police department investigations that were initiated 
during our review period, but remained open after the end of fiscal 
year 2007. In fiscal year 2004, investigations of three police 
departments were authorized and the Section resolved five 
investigations with settlement agreements. (Appendix V provides 
information on the reasons why the Section closed matters.[Footnote 
153]) 

The Special Litigation Section Participated in 33 Cases, the Majority 
Involved Institutional Conditions: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section 
participated in 33 cases, filing complaints as plaintiff in 31 cases 
and participating in 1 case as defendant and 1 case as defendant 
intervenor. The Section also handled 25 Immigration and Nationality Act 
appeals for DOJ in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In addition, the Section 
continued to participate in 66 cases in which the complaint or brief 
had been filed prior to 2001 and remained open for at least part of the 
7-year period. These cases are described in appendix V. The 31 
plaintiff cases involved three of the Section's four areas of 
responsibility--institutional conditions, the conduct of law 
enforcement agencies, and access to reproductive health facilities and 
places of religious worship. According to Special Litigation Section 
officials, the Section sought to ensure that the work of the Section 
reflected geographic diversity. Our analysis of the 31 plaintiff cases 
showed that the Section had filed cases in 21 states and the District 
of Columbia.[Footnote 154] The Section filed more than one case 
involving different types of facilities in 7 states; for example, 1 
case within a state might involve juvenile facilities and another case 
in the same state might involve a facility for persons with 
developmental disabilities. 

For cases brought under CRIPA, the Special Litigation Section is 
authorized to file claims alleging a pattern or practice of egregious 
and flagrant conditions that deprive institutionalized persons of their 
constitutional or federal statutory rights. Under 14141, the Section is 
authorized to file claims alleging a pattern or practice of conduct by 
law enforcement or conduct of officials responsible for the 
administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles, 
which deprived persons of their constitutional or federal statutory 
rights. According to Special Litigation Section officials, in deciding 
whether or not to pursue a case, they considered the conditions in a 
particular facility or misconduct of a particular police department and 
whether the system (e.g., state correctional or juvenile justice 
system) or department alleged to have violated the statute had taken 
corrective action or had accepted the behavior in question as its way 
of doing business. However, they said that even if the system or 
department were taking corrective action, the Special Litigation 
Section might pursue a case depending on the severity of the situation 
(e.g., sexual abuse) or if Section officials believed that the facility 
or local entity were incapable of addressing the problem. As in the 
other sections, when recommending litigation, the Special Litigation 
Section sent a justification package to the Division. According to 
Section officials, the justification package that the Special 
Litigation Section sent to the Division for approval usually contained 
an explanation of what occurred in negotiations among the parties and 
why the Special Litigation Section was unable to reach a settlement, 
and the Section's plans for going forward, in addition to the 
investigative findings and relevant supplemental information. 

As shown in table 33, most of the cases (27 of 31) that the Section 
filed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 involved institutional 
conditions. The Section filed three cases involving the conduct of law 
enforcement agencies. In addition, in August 2007 the Section filed one 
case involving access to a reproductive health clinic in which the 
complaint alleged threats of death and injury to a physician working at 
a reproductive health care clinic. The court issued a permanent 
injunction in November 2007, prohibiting the defendant from publishing 
information about reproductive health care physicians, staff, or 
patients with the intent of threatening them with physical bodily harm 
or death to prevent them from providing reproductive health services. 
During the 7-year period, the Section did not file any cases involving 
violations of the exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized 
persons--RLUIPA. Section officials stated that there was a time when 
the Section's enforcement of RLUIPA was directed to be a lower priority 
than its enforcement of other statutes. However, in April 2009, these 
officials told us that the Section was reviewing a number of 
preliminary inquires under RLUIPA, but had not yet filed any complaints 
because it was still investigating these matters. 

Table 33: Cases Filed by Special Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2007 by Area of Responsibility: 

Area of responsibility: Institutional conditions; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2007[A]: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 27. 

Area of responsibility: Conduct of law enforcement agencies[B]; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007[A]: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 3. 

Area of responsibility: Access to reproductive health facilities and 
places of religious worship; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007[A]: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 1. 

Area of responsibility: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2007[A]: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 31. 

Source: GAO analysis of complaints filed for cases identified in ICM 
data. 

[A] In fiscal year 2007, the Section filed an amended complaint in a 
case filed and settled in fiscal year 2005. Since the amendment was 
part of the same case, the amendment was not counted as a separate case 
in fiscal year 2007. 

[B] The area of responsibility--conduct of law enforcement agencies--
includes one facility type in ICM--law enforcement agency. Therefore, 
numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of law 
enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility 
type law enforcement agency. 

[End of table] 

Cases involving institutional conditions: 

As shown in table 34, from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special 
Litigation Section pursued 27 cases involving institutional conditions 
in three categories--health and social welfare (13), juvenile 
corrections (7), and adult corrections (7). The number of cases filed 
varied by facility type. Additionally, a single case might involve more 
than one facility; for example, 1 case initially involved 4 mental 
health facilities and 3 more were added by an amended complaint. 

Table 34: Cases Involving Institutional Conditions by Category, 
Facility Type, and Fiscal Year: 

Category: Health and social welfare: 

Facility type: Developmental disabilities facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 
Total: 6. 

Facility type: Mental health facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 3. 

Facility type: Nursing home; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 4. 

Facility type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 13. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 

Facility type: Juvenile correctional facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 7. 

Category: Adult corrections; 

Facility type: Jail; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 6. 

Facility type: Prison; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 

Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 1. 

Facility type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2003: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2004: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2005: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2006: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 7. 

Category: Grand Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 27. 

Source: GAO analysis of complaints filed for cases identified in ICM 
data. 

[A] In fiscal year 2007, the Section filed an amended complaint in a 
case filed and settled in fiscal year 2005. Since the amendment was 
part of the same case, the amendment was not counted as a separate case 
in fiscal year 2007. 

[End of table] 

Under its CRIPA authority, the Section filed 13 (of 27) cases alleging 
violations of the civil rights of residents of health and social 
welfare facilities, including facilities for persons with developmental 
disabilities (6), mental health facilities (3), and nursing homes (4). 
It filed 12 of the 13 cases from fiscal years 2004 through 2007. Among 
the violations alleged in these cases were failure to provide adequate 
services (e.g., medical treatment planning, psychiatric, psychological, 
nursing, rehabilitation therapy, nutritional, pharmacy, and medical and 
dental care) and sufficient numbers of trained professional staff as 
legally required. The allegations usually included a failure to assess 
facility residents to ascertain whether they were receiving adequate 
treatment in the most integrated setting, as required under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.[Footnote 155] The Section resolved the 
13 cases through different legal means, including six cases by consent 
decree (nursing home (2), developmental disabilities (2), and mental 
health (2) facilities) and seven cases by out of court settlements 
(developmental disability (4), nursing home (2) and mental health (1) 
facilities). The Section was monitoring 11 of these cases for 
compliance and closed 2 cases (1 nursing home and 1 facility for 
persons with developmental disabilities) during our review period. 

Seven (of 27) cases involved institutional conditions in juvenile 
correctional facilities, the most frequently reported facility type, 
from fiscal years 2003 through 2007. All cases involving juvenile 
correctional facilities were recorded as part of the Section's CRIPA 
work in the Division's annual CRIPA report to Congress, although, as 
previously discussed, all complaints against juvenile correctional 
facilities had been filed under 14141 since 1997, while cases involving 
allegations against an entire juvenile justice system were filed under 
both statutes. The 7 cases involved one or more facilities located in 7 
states--Arkansas, Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and 
Oklahoma. The allegations included a pattern or practice of failing to 
protect inmates from undue risk from harm, including risk of suicide 
and abuse from staff; failing to provide adequate services of various 
types (e.g., mental health, special education, rehabilitation therapy, 
or psychiatric); and using isolation or physical restraints, among 
others. According to Special Litigation Section officials, 2 cases were 
filed because the respective jurisdiction refused to cooperate with the 
Section and settle the case. In other situations, because Section 
officials believed conditions in the juvenile facilities to be so 
egregious, they determined that filing a case was the proper avenue to 
monitor remedial efforts by the jurisdiction. During the time of our 
review, the Special Litigation Section resolved 5 of the juvenile 
justice cases by the Section requesting that the court dismiss the case 
(3), the parties entering into a consent decree (1), and the parties 
reaching an out of court settlement (1). The Section continued to 
monitor the jurisdictions for compliance in 4 of the 5 cases and closed 
the fifth case. The Section resolved the sixth case through a 
settlement in 2005 and monitored the jurisdiction for compliance until 
2007, when the Section filed an amended complaint, replacing the 
original complaint, and amended the settlement to add another facility. 
The seventh case was still in litigation as of July 31, 2008. 

In addition, during the 7-year period, the Section filed seven cases 
involving institutional conditions in adult correctional facilities-- 
jails (6) and prisons (1). The six jail cases were filed under CRIPA 
(5) and 14141 (1). The alleged violations included a pattern or 
practice of failing to protect inmates from harm and failure to 
adequately classify and supervise inmates. The allegations also 
included failure to provide sufficient access to the courts, adequate 
medical and mental health care, sufficient exercise opportunities, a 
healthy environment, and sanitary living conditions (e.g., insufficient 
ventilation, which can cause medical issues, or the presence of vermin 
or human waste). Five of the jail cases were resolved by the parties 
reaching an out of court settlement (4) or entering into a consent 
decree (1). The Section then monitored jurisdictions for compliance. 
[Footnote 156] One case was still in litigation as of July 31, 2008. 
Additionally, the Section filed one case involving conditions in prison 
under its CRIPA authority. In this case, the allegations included 
failure to provide adequate supervision and inmate classification, 
adequate medical and mental health care, and a healthy environment. The 
parties agreed to a settlement in 2002, and the court dismissed the 
case in 2006. 

Cases involving the conduct of law enforcement agencies: 

During the 7-year period, to carry out its responsibility to enforce 
laws involving the conduct of law enforcement agencies, the Special 
Litigation Section filed three cases alleging police misconduct. These 
cases were filed under 14141 and were brought against police 
departments in two cities and one county, in fiscal years 2001, 2003, 
and 2004, respectively. According to Section officials, the Section 
decided whether or not to pursue a case involving a law enforcement 
agency on a department-by-department basis, as determined by the 
Section's assessment of the kind of misconduct uncovered and its 
estimation of the jurisdiction's ability to address the misconduct with 
or without the involvement of the court and upon the approval by the 
Division's Front Office. The complaints in the three cases included 
allegations of police use of excessive force. The two cases involving 
city police departments also included allegations of improper searches 
and seizures, arrests made without a warrant, and issues related to the 
receipt and adjudication of civilian complaints. The parties in each of 
the cases entered into a consent decree. By the end of fiscal year 
2007, the Section had closed the case involving the county police 
department and was monitoring for compliance the consent decrees with 
the two city departments. 

The Section also participated as a defendant and a defendant intervenor 
in two cases involving law enforcement agencies. In the case in which 
DOJ was a defendant, the Fraternal Order of Police sought to prevent 
DOJ from enforcing 14141 on the grounds that the act exceeded 
congressional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, 
was unconstitutional. In the case in which DOJ was a defendant 
intervenor, the Section intervened in support of the state's hiring 
practices, as they applied to the selection of the chief of police. The 
plaintiff--a candidate for police chief--sought to have the city follow 
state law and promote its new police chief from within the ranks the 
police department. DOJ intervened because it believed that the court 
might order the city to take actions that conflicted with an ongoing 
consent decree between DOJ and the city. The Section closed the former 
case in fiscal year 2001 and the latter in fiscal year 2002. 

The Special Litigation Section Devoted the Greatest Proportion of Time 
to Matters and Cases Involving Institutional Conditions: 

Aggregate data on time spent by Special Litigation staff on matters and 
cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 showed that overall the 
Section spent the greatest percentage of time on those matters and 
cases involving institutional conditions.[Footnote 157] However, the 
proportion of time spent in any fiscal year on matters and cases 
involving institutional conditions varied in relation to the time spent 
enforcing laws related to the conduct of law enforcement agencies. 

As shown in table 35, during the 7-year period, the Section reported 
spending the greatest percentage of time on matters involving 
institutional conditions in all facility types (62 percent). The 
Section spent the remaining 39 percent of the time on matters involving 
the conduct of law enforcement agencies. The percentage of time spent 
on matters involving institutional conditions each fiscal year 
generally increased during the 7 years, while the percentage of time 
spent on conduct of law enforcement generally decreased. 

Table 35: Percentage of Hours Reported for Matters by Facility Type and 
Fiscal Year: 

Area of responsibility: Institutional conditions; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 53; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 51; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 54; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 61; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 63; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 69; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 75; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 62. 

Area of responsibility: Conduct of law enforcement[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 46; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 47; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 43; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 39; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 37; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 39. 

Area of responsibility: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 97; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 101. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: The table does not include time reported for facility group home 
(CRIPA); jail/prison (RLUIPA matters); and clinic (FACE) matters where 
hours were less than .05 percent. The table also does not include the 
category "other," for which the facility type was not identified and 
the combination of hours was less than 1 percent in any fiscal year. 
Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number.Percentages do not sum 
to 100 due to rounding. 

Hours that provided the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

[A] The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies 
includes one facility type in ICM--law enforcement agency. Therefore, 
the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of law 
enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility 
type law enforcement agency. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 36, of the total reported time spent on cases for the 
7-year period, the Section spent the greatest percentage of time (81 
percent) on cases involving institutional conditions. In addition, the 
Section spent 17 percent of the time on cases involving the conduct of 
law enforcement agencies.[Footnote 158] However, the percentage of time 
spent on each of these two areas of responsibility varied during the 
time period. 

Table 36: Percentage of Hours Reported for Cases by Area of 
Responsibility and Fiscal Year: 

Area of Responsibility: Institutional conditions; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 58; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 83; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 84; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 90; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 88; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 92; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 81. 

Area of Responsibility: Conduct of law enforcement agencies[B]; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 40; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 26; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 17. 

Area of Responsibility: Access to reproductive health; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 1. 

Area of Responsibility: Immigration Appeals; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 1. 

Area of Responsibility: Total[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 101; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007 Total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Note: Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of 
all section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

[A] Total percentages may be less than 100 percent due to exclusion of 
the facility type mental retardation and mental health where hours were 
less than .05 percent or rounding. 

[B] The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies 
includes one facility type in ICM--law enforcement agency. Therefore, 
the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of law 
enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility 
type law enforcement agency. 

[End of table] 

The percentage of time spent on cases involving institutional 
conditions increased to over 90 percent in fiscal year 2007. Section 
officials explained that in that year, the Section had been involved in 
contested litigation related to juvenile justice practices in two 
states and in regular contempt proceedings in another case, which 
accounted for 44 (of 92) percent of the time spent that year on cases 
involving institutional conditions. In contrast, the Section reported 
spending a larger percentage of time on cases involving the conduct of 
law enforcement in fiscal years 2001(40 percent) and 2002 (26 percent). 
According to Section officials, during these 2 years the Section was 
engaged in highly contested litigation that involved racial profiling 
claims and required intensive document analysis. They explained that 
since this was the first contested police department litigation under 
the Section's police misconduct authority, each issue that arose 
presented an issue of law that had not previously been decided by any 
court. Consequently, this case required significant attorney time, thus 
explaining the high percentage of time spent on police conduct cases 
for those 2 years. Appendix V provides additional information on time 
reported spent on matters and cases. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review 
and comment. DOJ provided technical comments, which we incorporated 
into the report as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date 
of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 
interested congressional committees and the Attorney General, and other 
interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no 
cost on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8777, or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Other GAO contacts and key 
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Eileen Regen Larence: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

To describe the enforcement efforts of the Civil Rights Division's 
Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and 
Special Litigation sections from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, this 
report discusses the activities that the four sections undertook to 
implement their respective enforcement responsibilities during the 7- 
year period. 

To determine the types of activities undertaken, we analyzed electronic 
data for closed matters--matters that were concluded--and cases from 
the Division's Interactive Case Management System (ICM) for each of the 
four sections.[Footnote 159] We included matters initiated and closed 
during fiscal years 2001 through 2007 or initiated in prior years and 
closed during these years. We included cases pursued during these 7 
fiscal years. As part of this analysis, we took actions to assess the 
reliability of the ICM data to ensure that they were sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of these objectives. 

Initially, we obtained ICM data in spreadsheet form for closed matters 
and cases for each of the four sections.[Footnote 160] We 
electronically tested the data for obvious errors in accuracy and 
completeness, including examining the consistency of entries among 
related data fields. In addition, we manually reviewed matter and case 
data for each of the four sections, identifying missing values and 
assessing consistency across fields, to help assess the completeness 
and accuracy of the spreadsheets in order to determine which fields 
were sufficiently reliable, accurate, and complete for purposes of our 
review. Since we found the data for matters initiated prior to 2001 to 
have substantial missing values in certain fields, we focused our 
analysis on closed matters initiated from fiscal year 2001 through 
fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 161] As appropriate, we asked the sections 
to provide additional information so that we could complete the entries 
for a field or correct errors for matter and case data. From July 
through August 2008, the Division provided us with revised spreadsheets 
for matters and cases with additional information and the identified 
data errors corrected. 

As part of our assessment of the ICM data, we also analyzed Division 
documents that provided guidance on the actions that Division and 
section staffs were to take to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and 
completeness of ICM data. These documents included internal memoranda 
from Division managers and the ICM user's guide and data dictionary, 
which described the purpose and contents of ICM. We also interviewed 
Division Information Technology (IT) officials, who are the Division 
officials responsible for managing and maintaining ICM, and section 
chiefs, deputy chiefs, and other section staff to obtain information on 
actions taken by the Division and sections to take to ensure the 
accuracy, reliability, and completeness of these data from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007. 

To supplement our analysis of the ICM matter data and further assess 
the reliability of these data, we compared ICM data with documents 
(e.g., memoranda and correspondence) in matter files for a 
nongeneralizable sample of closed matters for each of the four 
sections.[Footnote 162] In determining our samples, we randomly 
selected matters investigated under each of the statutes enforced by 
the respective section and took into consideration the government role 
(e.g., plaintiff or defendant) and type of subject investigated (e.g., 
the nature of the alleged discrimination or violation) to ensure that 
the sample reflected the breadth of the work and practices of the 
respective section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Once the 
matters for each section were organized into categories, we randomly 
ordered the matters for selection. We initially decided to review about 
200 matter files (about 50 for each section), which was similar to the 
number of matters reviewed in the prior GAO report on the Civil Rights 
Division.[Footnote 163] Additionally, given the audit's time 
constraints and the intended purpose of the information--to provide 
anecdotal information on the sections' reasons for closing matters--we 
concluded that reviewing this number of matter files would provide 
insight into the sections' enforcement efforts. Using the randomized 
list of matters, we selected the matter files to be reviewed. 

Specifically, we reviewed about 210 of 5,400 matters, including: 

* 49 of about 3,300 closed matters for the Employment Litigation 
Section, 

* 60 of about 1,070 closed matters for the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section, 

* 51 of about 345 closed matters for the Voting Section, and: 

* 51 of about 714 closed matters for the Special Litigation Section. 

Because our samples were not representative, we were unable to 
generalize the results to all closed matters investigated by these 
sections during the period of our review. Nevertheless, our file 
reviews provided examples of how the matter data in ICM compared to the 
same information in the matter files, how the sections investigated 
matters, and why the sections closed them.[Footnote 164] 

From our analysis of the ICM closed matter data, we determined which 
data fields were sufficiently reliable for presenting overall trends in 
the sections' enforcement efforts from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, 
with respect to matters. However, the results of analysis for each of 
the four sections and, therefore, the fields on which we reported, 
varied for each section. For example, for the Employment Litigation 
Section, the subject field--the field that provides information on the 
nature of the allegation, e.g., hiring, recruitment, and reemployment--
was incomplete in ICM for about 85 percent of the matters and the 
protected class field was incomplete for about 83 percent of the 
matters; therefore, we could not determine the characteristics of the 
majority of the matters closed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 
[Footnote 165] In contrast, for the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section, we determined the data for these fields to be sufficiently 
accurate, reliable, and complete for our purposes. 

Additionally, to supplement our analysis of the ICM case data for each 
section, as well as our assessment of the reliability of these data, we 
analyzed complaints for a comparable number of cases that each section 
filed in court as plaintiff. Specifically, we analyzed all complaints 
filed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by the Employment Litigation 
(60), Voting (56), and Special Litigation (31) sections. For each of 
the three sections, we compared the information in the complaints to 
data contained in ICM (e.g., the statutes under which the complaints 
were filed) to identify possible data entry errors. We provided the 
results of our analyses to officials in each of the sections and based 
on their respective responses made changes to the case data for each 
section, as appropriate. Our analysis of the cases for the three 
sections allowed us to report on the type of litigation pursued by each 
of these sections during the 7-year period. 

Given the large number (277) of complaints filed by the Housing and 
Civil Enforcement Section during the 7-year period, we analyzed 
documents for a nongeneralizable sample of 33 cases identified in the 
ICM data.[Footnote 166] In selecting the sample of cases to review, we 
randomly chose cases that involved each of the statutes enforced by the 
Section, and considered other case characteristics, such as the fiscal 
year in which the case was filed in court. Once the cases were 
organized into categories, we randomly ordered them within each 
category and selected cases from each category for a total of 33 cases 
(31 plaintiff complaints and 2 amicus briefs). As with the other three 
sections, we compared the information in the sample of complaints to 
data contained in ICM (e.g., the statutes under which the complaints 
were filed) to identify possible data entry errors. Although the 
information we obtained cannot be generalized to all cases filed by the 
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section during the period of our review, 
it provided us with information on how the case data in ICM compared to 
the same information in the case files and examples of the types of 
cases pursued by this Section. In addition, we reviewed the complaints 
for all 20 (including the 2 that had been randomly selected) cases 
filed that the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section derived from over 
1,600 tests conducted as part of the Section's Fair Housing Testing 
Program from 2001 through 2007, which it established in 1991 to help 
enforce the FHA.[Footnote 167] We provided the results of our analyses 
of 51 cases, which included the randomly selected and testing cases, to 
agency officials. After their review, we made changes to the case data, 
as appropriate. This analysis allowed us to report on all of the 
"testing" cases as well as examples of other cases pursued by Housing 
and Civil Enforcement Section during the 7-year period. 

In addition to the closed matter data, we also analyzed aggregate 
matter data for matters initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 
by each of the four sections in our review. Because these data included 
open matters--ongoing investigations--the Division provided the 
information aggregated by fiscal year for selected fields, for example, 
statute. We received hard copies of this information for each section, 
which we then entered into spreadsheets. We verified our data entry, 
and then analyzed the spreadsheets. From our assessment of the accuracy 
and reliability of the closed matter data and discussions with agency 
officials about the aggregate matter data provided for each section, we 
were able to determine potential data issues and make necessary 
corrections in the aggregate matter data. For example, in the Voting 
Section aggregate matter data, we identified potential discrepancies in 
about 40 of the 442 matters, when we compared the data in the statute, 
subject, or protected class fields; for example, a protected class was 
paired with a statutory provision for which it was not relevant. We 
asked each section to review our observations and provide corrections. 
Changes were made to the data for each section, as appropriate. 

The Division also provided aggregate data for the time each of the four 
sections reported spending on matters and cases from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. These data included the time reported spent by all 
section staff, including the section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. Because these data included open matters--ongoing 
investigations--the Division provided the information aggregated by 
fiscal year for selected fields, for example, statute. We received hard 
copies of this information for each section, which we then entered into 
spreadsheets. We verified our data entry, and then analyzed the 
spreadsheets. From our assessment of the accuracy and reliability of 
the closed matter data and discussions with agency officials about the 
aggregate time data provided for each section, we were able to 
determine potential data issues and make necessary corrections. 
However, although the time data system is linked to ICM, the 
information is entered into the system by the individual staff person 
and not subject to the same review process as the ICM data; therefore, 
the time data may not be precise. Accordingly, after discussions with 
Division officials about these limitations, we decided to report time 
information as percentages and generally in broad categories (e.g., 
time reported spent on cases and matters by a section). This 
information provided additional trend information and context for our 
analysis of the enforcement efforts of each of the four sections from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

On the basis of our data assessment efforts for all of the matter, 
case, and time data, we determined that the data presented in the 
report were sufficiently reliable for presenting overall trends in the 
sections' enforcement efforts. Limitations in the data that we 
identified for each of the sections are noted in the report as needed. 

We used the ICM matter and case data in conjunction with other sources, 
including matter and case file documents, agency documents, and 
interviews with agency officials. In addition to the materials obtained 
from agency files, we also analyzed DOJ documents, such as annual 
reports to Congress, congressional hearing statements by agency 
officials, and budget documents, which described the Division's 
enforcement efforts (including special initiatives and areas of focus) 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. We analyzed Division documents 
such as internal memoranda from Division managers, Division reports to 
Congress on the four sections' enforcement endeavors, transcripts of 
congressional oversight hearings, and federal budget submissions, to 
determine how Division and section officials used ICM data to report 
information to congressional committees on the four sections' 
enforcement efforts.[Footnote 168] We interviewed senior officials in 
DOJ's Justice Management Division, which is the management arm of DOJ; 
the Acting Assistant Attorney Generals for the Division;[Footnote 169] 
and officials, including section chiefs, deputy section chiefs, and 
other staff in the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil 
Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation sections to obtain 
information on each of the four sections' enforcement efforts during 
the 7-year period. 

Finally, to identify issues and gain additional perspective on the 
sections' litigation efforts, we interviewed representatives of three 
nongovernmental civil rights organizations and five experts on the four 
civil rights areas covered in our review. We identified these 
individuals in part through our review of the transcripts from 
oversight hearings in which these individuals had testified. Although 
the information we obtained is not generalizable beyond the individuals 
we interviewed, these interviews helped enhance our analysis of the 
litigation efforts and other activities of the four sections during the 
period of our review. 

We conducted our work from June 2007 through October 2009 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that were 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. 
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions 
in this report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Additional Information on the Employment Litigation 
Section: 

Statutes Enforced by the Employment Litigation Section from Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2007: 

Title VII: 

The Employment Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing against 
state and local governments provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). Title VII[Footnote 170] prohibits 
discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and 
national origin. Unlawful practices may include recruitment, hiring, 
assignment, promotion, benefits, testing, firing and harassment, among 
others. Title VII also prohibits retaliation against a person for 
filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, 
or opposing discriminatory practices. The Employment Litigation Section 
initiates Title VII litigation in two ways--(1) under section 706 or 
(2) under section 707. 

Section 706[Footnote 171] allows the Attorney General to file a suit 
based upon an individual charge of discrimination that has been 
referred to DOJ by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 
Individuals who believe that they were unlawfully discriminated against 
by an employer--including a state or local government--may file a 
charge with the EEOC. Once a charge is filed with the EEOC, the EEOC is 
then obligated to investigate. The EEOC may either dismiss the charge 
if there is not reasonable cause to believe that it is true or, 
alternatively, if the EEOC decides that there is reasonable cause, it 
must attempt to eliminate the alleged unlawful employment practices by 
other methods, such as mediation. If after investigation the EEOC 
determines that a charge made against a state or local government has 
merit and efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are unsuccessful, the 
EEOC must refer it to DOJ to bring an enforcement action. DOJ has the 
authority to determine whether to bring such an action. If the Section 
decides not to initiate litigation, then it will issue a right-to-sue 
letter notifying the charging party of his or her right to file a 
private lawsuit.[Footnote 172] Section 706 also grants the Attorney 
General the authority to intervene in private cases against a public 
employer that are of general public importance. 

Under section 707 of Title VII,[Footnote 173] the Attorney General has 
authority to bring lawsuits against state and local governments where 
there is reason to believe that there has been a pattern or practice of 
employment discrimination. Pattern or practice cases seek to alter 
employment and selection practices--such as recruitment, hiring, 
assignment, tests, and promotions--which have the purpose or effect of 
discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin. Employers are liable for employment practices that are 
intentionally discriminatory, as well as those that have the effect of 
being discriminatory, for instance, a physical fitness test that 
eliminates more female than male candidates. The Employment Litigation 
Section has discretion to initiate these cases. Its authority is not 
dependent upon a referral from the EEOC. 

USERRA: 

The Employment Litigation Section also enforces the provisions of the 
Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 
(USERRA),[Footnote 174] which prohibit employers from discriminating or 
retaliating against an employee or applicant for employment on the 
basis of that person's military service. Servicemembers who meet 
certain conditions in USERRA are entitled to reemployment rights and 
benefits including, for example, prompt reinstatement to the positions 
they would have held if they had never left their employment, health 
coverage for designated periods, and training, as needed, to requalify 
for their jobs. The Department of Labor (DOL) investigates USERRA 
complaints, makes a determination as to whether the complaint has 
merit, and attempts to resolve voluntarily those complaints that are 
deemed meritorious. If DOL is unable to resolve a complaint, at the 
request of the servicemember, DOL will refer the complaint to DOJ. 
According to Employment Litigation Section officials, most USERRA 
matters are resolved by DOL. The Employment Litigation Section reviews 
DOL's investigative file accompanying the complaint and makes a 
determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to the rights 
or benefits. After making such a determination, the Section has the 
authority to bring a case on behalf of the claimant. At the end of 
fiscal year 2004, the Attorney General transferred responsibility for 
the enforcement of USERRA to the Civil Rights Division from the Civil 
Division. The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights delegated 
USERRA enforcement authority to the Employment Litigation Section. 

Right-to-Sue Letters: 

Most of the more than 3,200 matters (about 90 percent) that the 
Employment Litigation Section initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007 resulted from section 706 referrals, referred to as charge 
referrals, from the EEOC. The Section considers all EEOC charge 
referrals as matters even if an investigation is not opened. However, 
the Section does not consider requests for right-to-sue letters as 
matters. While a charging party is required to file a charge of 
discrimination with the EEOC, according to a Section Deputy Chief, some 
charging parties may prefer to initiate litigation on their own. In 
such instances, the charging parties will request that DOJ provide a 
right-to-sue letter as a precondition to filing a Title VII claim in 
federal court. According to a Section Deputy Chief, the Section honors 
such requests and, as shown in table 37, issued 14,608 such letters 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Table 37: Number of Right-to-Sue Letters Issued by the Employment 
Litigation Section: 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 2,796. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 2,441. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 2,125. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 1,989. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 1,765. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 1,643. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 1,849. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
Number of right-to-sue letters issued (charging party requested right 
to sue letter): 14,608. 

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

[End of table] 

Pattern or Practice Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Pattern or practice cases seek to alter employment and selection 
practices--such as recruitment, hiring, assignment, tests, and 
promotions--that have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the 
basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.[Footnote 175] 
According to Section officials, pattern or practice cases, which are 
complex and resource-intensive, have consistently been a priority of 
the Section because they have the greatest impact on remedying 
discrimination practices. The Section filed 11 pattern or practice 
cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. As described in table 38, 
most of these cases involved claims of discrimination in hiring and the 
most common protected class was race. 

Table 38: Summary of Section 707 Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

Date filed: January 10, 2001; 
Name of case: U.S. v. the State of Delaware; the Delaware Department of 
Public Safety; and the Delaware Division of State Police; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Delaware 
Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police used written 
examinations for the entry-level trooper positions that have 
disproportionately excluded African Americans from employment, but have 
not been shown to be job related and consistent with business 
necessity, as required by federal law. 

Date filed: January 8, 2004; 
Name of case: U.S. v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 
Erie, Pennsylvania, pursued practices that discriminated against women 
and deprived or tended to deprive women of employment opportunities 
because of their sex. According to the lawsuit, the city of Erie 
implemented these policies and practices by, among other ways, failing 
or refusing to hire women for the entry-level position of police 
officer on the same basis as men, and using selection procedures and 
physical agility standards for entry-level positions of police officer 
that have an adverse impact on women, and that are not job-related. 

Date filed: September 16, 2004; 
Name of case: U.S. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit 
Authority; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Los 
Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority pursued policies and 
practices that discriminated against employees and applicants for 
employment on the basis of religion by, among other ways, failing or 
refusing to reasonably accommodate employees and applicants for 
employment who, in accordance with their religious observances, 
practices, or beliefs, needed religious accommodation because they are 
unable to comply with the Metropolitan Transit Authority's requirement 
that employees in the Operations Division be available to work 
weekends, on any shift, at any location. 

Date filed: September 29, 2004; 
Name of case: U.S. v. City of Gallup; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 
Gallup, New Mexico, implemented discriminatory recruitment and hiring 
procedures by, among other ways, failing or refusing to recruit and 
hire American Indians on the same basis as whites and Hispanics. 

Date filed: September 30, 2004; 
Name of case: U.S. v. New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 
and the New York City Transit Authority; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the New York 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the New York City Transit 
Authority selectively enforced uniform policies to target Muslim and 
Sikh employees whose religious beliefs and practices require that they 
wear head coverings. 

Date filed: July 26, 2005; 
Name of case: U.S. v. City of Pontiac, Michigan and Local #376 Fire 
Fighters Union, International Association of Fire Fighters; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 
Pontiac, through the Pontiac Fire Department, has pursued policies and 
practices that discriminate against non-minority applicants for 
employment and employees based on race and sex by explicitly creating 
and maintaining a dual system for hire and promotion requiring that one 
of every three hires or promotions be given to a minority, which 
includes women. 

Date filed: August 26, 2005; 
Name of case: U.S. v. State of Ohio, et. al.; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the state of 
Ohio, among others, pursued policies and practices that discriminated 
against employees on the basis of religion by failing or refusing to 
reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices, and 
beliefs of those state employees who hold religious objections to 
associating with and financially supporting employee organizations, but 
who are not members of religions that historically have held 
conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting 
organizations. The lawsuit further alleged that the state of Ohio, 
among others, subjected state employees to disparate treatment on the 
basis of religion by allowing employees who are members of religions 
that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or 
financially supporting employee organizations to redirect their fair 
share fees to nonreligious charities, but denying the same 
accommodation to employees who are not members of such religions, even 
if they hold religious objections to associating with and financially 
supporting employee organizations. 

Date filed: February 8, 2006; 
Name of case: U.S. v. The Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois 
University; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Board of 
Trustees of Southern Illinois University maintained programs open only 
to undergraduate, prospective graduate and doctoral students who were 
either of a specified race and/or national origin or who are female. 
Specifically, the Proactive Recruitment of Multicultural Professionals 
for Tomorrow (PROMPT) fellowship had been open only to members of 
"traditional underrepresented groups," including African Americans, 
Latino/Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. Of 
the approximately 78 fellowship recipients from 2000 to the time the 
lawsuit was filed, none of the recipients were white or a member of a 
minority group other than one of the PROMPT-specified minority groups. 
The Bridge to the Doctorate fellowship had been open only to members of 
"underrepresented minority groups," including Hispanics, African 
Americans, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Pacific Islanders. Of 
the approximately 27 Bridge fellowship recipients during the 2 years it 
had been in effect, none were white or a member of a minority group 
other than one of the specified minority groups. Additionally, the 
Graduate Dean's fellowship had been open to women and "traditionally 
underrepresented students" who had overcome social, cultural, or 
economic conditions that adversely affected their educational process, 
including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and 
Native Americans. Of the 27 Graduate Dean fellowship recipients, none 
were white males. 

Date filed: April 3, 2006; 
Name of case: U.S. v. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 
Virginia Beach pursued policies and practices that discriminated 
against African American and Hispanic applicants and that deprived or 
tended to deprive African Americans and Hispanics of employment 
opportunities because of their race and national origin, by, among 
other ways, failing or refusing to hire African American and Hispanic 
applicants for the position of entry-level police officer on the same 
basis as white applicants; and by using a mathematics test (National 
Police Officer Selection Test) with a cutoff score of 70 percent as a 
pass/fail screening device that had an adverse impact on African 
American and Hispanic applicants for the position of entry-level 
officer and that was not job related for the position consistent with 
business necessity. 

Date filed: July 24, 2006; 
Name of case: U.S. v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 
Chesapeake's use of the National Police Officer Selection Test had an 
adverse impact on African American and Hispanic applicants for the 
position of entry-level police officer, and was not job related for the 
position consistent with business necessity. 

Date filed: May 21, 2007; 
Name of case: U.S. v. City of New York; 
Summary of case: The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 
New York pursued policies and practices that discriminated against 
African Americans and Hispanics and deprived these groups of 
individuals of employment opportunities because of their race and/or 
national origin by, among other ways, (1) failing or refusing to 
appoint, through its open competitive examination process, African 
Americans and Hispanics to the rank of entry-level firefighter on the 
same basis as whites; and (2) using written examinations that resulted 
in disparate impact upon African Americans and Hispanics and were not 
job related or consistent with business necessity. 

Source: GAO analysis of section 707 complaints filed by the Section 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

[End of table] 

Additional Information on Cases in Which the Employment Litigation 
Section Participated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

In addition to its work representing plaintiffs in employment 
discrimination cases, the Employment Litigation Section participated in 
lawsuits in several other ways, including as (1) an amicus curiae, or 
"friend of the court," in which the Section filed a brief in an action 
in which it was not a party because the Division had a strong interest 
in the subject matter; (2) a plaintiff or defendant intervenor, in 
which the Section intervened as a party in a case--either on the side 
of the plaintiff or the defendant--because the constitutionality of a 
federal statute had been questioned or it had another interest in the 
outcome of the case; and (3) a defendant, in which the Section 
represented the United States in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs against 
federal agencies challenging the enforcement of federal laws. From 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section participated in 18 cases as 
a plaintiff intervenor, amicus curiae, or defendant. Specifically, the 
Section intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs in 11 cases during the 
seven year period. Three of these cases were related and alleged that 
the District of Columbia government discriminated against three 
pregnant females on the basis of sex in violation of section 706 of 
Title VII. 

The Section participated in one case as amicus curiae during the 7-year 
period. In this case, which was filed in court on February 24, 2004, 
the Section appeared as amicus in support of the Salvation Army and 
state and local government defendants. Plaintiffs, current and former 
employees of the Salvation Army, brought an action seeking relief from 
the Salvation Army's efforts to enforce compliance with its religious 
mission among its staff; plaintiffs claimed to have been subjected to 
unlawful religious discrimination and brought suit against the 
Salvation Army, as well as against the City of New York and the 
commissioners of several state and local government entities that 
contracted with the Salvation Army for the provision of social 
services. The brief filed on behalf of the United States as amicus 
noted concern with the plaintiffs' claims that the Salvation Army's 
social service contracts with the state and local government defendants 
had turned it into a state actor, therefore subjecting its employment 
policies and practices to challenge as violating the federal Free 
Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as the claim that the 
Salvation Army's employment practices, in light of these contracts, 
created an Establishment Clause violation. As of September 21, 2009, 
the case was still pending. 

During the 7-year period of our review, the Employment Litigation 
Section participated in six cases as defendant. For example, in Colwell 
v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Section 
represented the Department of Health and Human Services in a suit where 
the plaintiffs had challenged guidance issued by that agency that would 
have required medical service providers and others to provide 
translation services to limited English proficient persons in order to 
implement the nondiscrimination principle of Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act.[Footnote 176] The plaintiffs asserted that the guidance 
exceeded that agency's authority and the agency had violated other 
federal and constitutional law. In ProEnglish, et al. v. George W. 
Bush, et al., the Section defended an action brought by plaintiffs' 
against federal defendants, including the Department of Heath and Human 
Services. The plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 13,166, which 
directed federal agencies, after consulting with appropriate program 
and activity stakeholders, to develop guidance that will help ensure 
that persons with limited English proficiency have meaningful access to 
federally funded services, as well as other related agency policy 
guidance documents. 

The Section was also involved in 116 cases from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007 that were filed prior to fiscal year 2001. These cases 
included (1) those where the Section was involved in litigation and (2) 
those where the case had been resolved and the Section was monitoring 
compliance with a settlement agreement or order. More than half (67 of 
116) of these cases involved pattern or practice claims under section 
707. According to Section officials, these cases typically result in 
consent orders that Section staff monitor over many years, as specified 
in the orders. On the basis of the Division's ICM data, the Section 
monitored compliance for 39 of the section 707 (pattern or practice) 
plaintiff cases that were closed at some point during the 7-year period 
for, on average, about 15 years.[Footnote 177] According to Section 
officials, as of October 2, 2009, the Section was continuing to monitor 
compliance in an additional 23 section 707 plaintiff cases. The Section 
had been monitoring compliance with these cases for, on average, about 
28 years. About 22 percent (26) of the 116 cases involved section 706 
claims. According to the Division's ICM data, the Section monitored 
compliance with the 24 section 706 plaintiff cases for, on average, 
about 4 years. As shown in table 39, 22 of the remaining 23 cases were 
defensive cases. 

Table 39: Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 2001 That Were Still Open 
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Statute: Section 707; 
Section's role: Plaintiff; 
Number of cases filed: 63. 

Statute: Section 707; 
Section's role: Defendant intervenor; 
Number of cases filed: 2. 

Statute: Section 707; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Statute: Section 707; 
Section's role: Amicus; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Total section 707[A]; 
Number of cases filed: 67. 

Statute: Section 706; 
Section's role: Plaintiff; 
Number of cases filed: 24. 

Statute: Section 706; 
Section's role: Plaintiff intervenor; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Statute: Section 706; 
Section's role: Amicus; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Total section 706; 
Number of cases filed: 26. 

Statute: Small Business Act Small Disadvantaged Business Goals[B]; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 7. 

Statute: Executive Order 11246; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 4. 

Statute: Executive Order 11246; 
Section's role: Plaintiff; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Total Executive Order 11246; 
Number of cases filed: 5. 

Statute: Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century[A]; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 4. 

Section's role: Defendant Intervenor; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Statute: Total Transportation Equity Act for 21[ST] Century; 
Section's role: [Empty]; 
Number of cases filed: 5. 

Statute: Department of Defense Price Preference Program[C]; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 2. 

Statute: False Statements; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Statute: Small Business Act 8(a) Program; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Statute: Fourteenth Amendment and Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act of 2000; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Statute: Environmental Protection Act; 
Section's role: Defendant; 
Number of cases filed: 1. 

Source: Civil Rights Division ICM data. 

[A] Includes cases in combination with section 707--section 706, Crime 
Control Act, 14th Amendment, Revenue Sharing Act, and the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act of 2000. 

[B] Includes one case in combination with Executive Order 11246. The 
Section has authority to prosecute enforcement actions upon referral by 
the Department of Labor of complaints arising under Executive Order 
11246, which prohibits discrimination in employment by federal 
contractors. 

[C] Includes one case in combination with Small Business Act 8(a) 
Program. Under the Department of Defense Price Preference Program, 
minority firms, including female-owned firms, are given price 
preferences in competing for federal contracts. 

[End of table] 

Time Spent on Matters, Cases, and Other Activities from Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2007: 

The Division's time data show that from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 
about 20 percent of the Employment Litigation Section's professional 
staff's time was charged to matters,[Footnote 178] 47 percent to cases, 
and 33 percent to other activities, such as professional development 
and outreach.[Footnote 179] Of the total time charged to matters, about 
65 percent of the time was charged to the section 706 matters, which 
comprised about 90 percent of the section's matter workload over the 
seven year period. 

As shown in table 40, the percentage of time charged each year to 
matters involving sections 706 and 707 claims fluctuated over the 7- 
year period, whereas time charged to USERRA matters from fiscal years 
2005 through 2007 was relatively constant. 

Table 40: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation Section 
Matters by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Statute: Section 706; 
FY 2001: 70; 
FY 2002: 76; 
FY 2003: 82; 
FY 2004: 62; 
FY 2005: 55; 
FY 2006: 60; 
FY 2007: 41; 
Percentage of total: time charged over the 7-year period: 65. 

Statute: Section 707; 
FY 2001: 26; 
FY 2002: 19; 
FY 2003: 15; 
FY 2004: 38; 
FY 2005: 25; 
FY 2006: 16; 
FY 2007: 20; 
Percentage of total: time charged over the 7-year period: 23. 

Statute: USERRA; 
FY 2001: n/a; 
FY 2002: n/a; 
FY 2003: n/a; 
FY 2004: n/a; 
FY 2005: 20; 
FY 2006: 23; 
FY 2007: 23; 
Percentage of total: time charged over the 7-year period: 8. 

Statute: Other[A]; 
FY 2001: 4; 
FY 2002: 5; 
FY 2003: 3; 
FY 2004: .3; 
FY 2005: .2; 
FY 2006: 1; 
FY 2007: 16; 
Percentage of total: time charged over the 7-year period: 4. 

Source: Division ICM time data. 

Notes: n/a--not applicable. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

[A] Other primarily includes time charged to various Section 
initiatives, such as the Section's ongoing initiative to target 
employers that may be engaged in a pattern or practice of employment 
discrimination, and the Section's technical assistance to other DOJ 
components and other federal executive agencies with respect to the use 
of employment selection practices and devices in terms of compliance 
with Title VII. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 41, more than 50 percent of the total time charged to 
cases each year was charged to pattern or practice (section 707) cases; 
and of the total time charged to cases over the 7-year period, about 63 
percent of the time was charged to these cases. Section officials 
stated that pattern or practice cases are resource-intensive because 
they are complex and typically involve multiple complainants. 

Table 41: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation Section 
Cases by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Statute: 706; 
FY 2001: 24; 
FY 2002: 26; 
FY 2003: 14; 
FY 2004: 22; 
FY 2005: 15; 
FY 2006: 13; 
FY 2007: 21; 
Percentage of total time charged over the 7-year period: 19. 

Statute: 707; 
FY 2001: 51; 
FY 2002: 60; 
FY 2003: 71; 
FY 2004: 67; 
FY 2005: 72; 
FY 2006: 61; 
FY 2007: 61; 
Percentage of total time charged over the 7-year period: 63. 

Statute: USERRA; 
FY 2001: [Empty]; 
FY 2002: [Empty]; 
FY 2003: [Empty]; 
FY 2004: [Empty]; 
FY 2005: 9; 
FY 2006: 16; 
FY 2007: 15; 
Percentage of total time charged over the 7-year period: 6. 

Statute: Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century; 
FY 2001: 15; 
FY 2002: 4; 
FY 2003: 6; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 0.4; 
FY 2006: 0.6; 
FY 2007: 0; 
Percentage of total time charged over the 7-year period: 4. 

Statute: Department of Defense Price Preference Program; 
FY 2001: 0.6; 
FY 2002: 3; 
FY 2003: 4; 
FY 2004: 4; 
FY 2005: 3; 
FY 2006: 4; 
FY 2007: 2; 
Percentage of total time charged over the 7-year period: 3. 

Statute: Immigration and Nationality Act[A]; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 0; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 0; 
FY 2006: 6; 
FY 2007: 1; 
Percentage of total time charged over the 7-year period: 1. 

Statute: Other; 
FY 2001: 8; 
FY 2002: 7; 
FY 2003: 5; 
FY 2004: 3; 
FY 2005: 1; 
FY 2006: .03; 
FY 2007: .08; 
Percentage of total time charged over the 7-year period: 4. 

Source: Division ICM data. 

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

[A] During fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Section assisted DOJ's 
Office of Immigration Litigation in handling Immigration and 
Nationality Act appeals. 

[End of table] 

According to the time data, in fiscal year 2001, about 27 percent of 
the time spent on cases was devoted to cases in which the Section acted 
as defendant. The Section represents the Departments of Labor and 
Transportation and other federal agencies when they are sued for what 
is alleged to be overzealous enforcement of federal laws that prohibit 
discrimination and/or require affirmative action by government 
contractors or recipients of federal financial assistance.[Footnote 
180] In addition, the Section has authority to prosecute enforcement 
actions for the Department of Labor of referrals arising under 
Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination in employment by 
federal contractors. According to the fiscal year 2001 budget 
submission, the demands placed upon the Section by defensive litigation 
had resulted in personnel being diverted from investigating and 
litigating affirmative Title VII cases, which resulted in less 
effective enforcement of Title VII. The amount of time devoted to 
defensive cases, as reported in ICM, declined to about 13 percent in 
fiscal year 2002, and generally declined slightly each following year 
to about 2 percent in fiscal year 2007. According to a Section Deputy 
Chief, the Section was involved in many defensive cases following the 
Adarand decision in 1995. However, the Section has not participated in 
any new defensive cases in recent years. Our review of complaints filed 
by the Division from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 identified that the 
Employment Litigation Section had not participated in any new defensive 
cases from fiscal years 2005 through 2007. 

Staff and Attrition Levels: 

As shown in table 42, for the 7-year period in our review, the Section 
had its highest level of staff (61) in fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 181] 

Table 155: Number of On-board Staff for the Employment Litigation 
Section by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Position: Attorney; 
FY 2001: 37; 
FY 2002: 36; 
FY 2003: 34; 
FY 2004: 36; 
FY 2005: 34; 
FY 2006: 39; 
FY 2007: 35. 

Position: Professional; 
FY 2001: 17; 
FY 2002: 17; 
FY 2003: 17; 
FY 2004: 15; 
FY 2005: 10; 
FY 2006: 12; 
FY 2007: 13. 

Position: Clerical; 
FY 2001: 7; 
FY 2002: 6; 
FY 2003: 7; 
FY 2004: 7; 
FY 2005: 5; 
FY 2006: 7; 
FY 2007: 5. 

Position: Total; 
FY 2001: 61; 
FY 2002: 59; 
FY 2003: 58; 
FY 2004: 58; 
FY 2005: 49; 
FY 2006: 58; 
FY 2007: 53. 

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

Note: Staff on-board reflects official numbers as of the last day of 
each fiscal year. 

[End of table] 

The turnover rates among Section staff varied by position and fiscal 
year, as shown in table 43. In fiscal year 2005, the Division granted 
voluntary early retirement authority along with a voluntary separation 
incentive payment of $25,000. According to Division officials, the 
buyout offered in 2005 resulted in an increased turnover rate among 
Section staff. 

Table 43: Percentage of Attrition for the Employment Litigation Section 
by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Position: Attorney; 
FY 2001: 20; 
FY 2002: 8; 
FY 2003: 23; 
FY 2004: 35; 
FY 2005: 22; 
FY 2006: 9; 
FY 2007: 21. 

Position: Professional; 
FY 2001: 0; 
FY 2002: 12; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 12; 
FY 2005: 40; 
FY 2006: 20; 
FY 2007: 8. 

Position: Clerical; 
FY 2001: 29; 
FY 2002: 14; 
FY 2003: 0; 
FY 2004: 0; 
FY 2005: 29; 
FY 2006: 20; 
FY 2007: 29. 

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

Notes: The Section's turnover rates include employees who have 
separated from the Division (i.e., resignation, transfer to another 
federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 
section within the Division. 

Numbers have been rounded to nearest whole number. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Additional Information on the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section: 

Statutes Enforced by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section is responsible for enforcing 
federal civil rights statutes related to discrimination in housing, 
credit transactions, land use, and in certain places of public 
accommodation, as well as enforcing certain federal protections for 
active duty servicemembers. Statutes enforced by the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section include the Fair Housing Act, The Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the land use 
provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 
and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

Fair Housing Act: 

The Fair Housing Act (FHA)[Footnote 182] prohibits discrimination on 
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national 
origin, and disability in all types of housing transactions. The FHA 
applies to direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real 
estate companies, as well as other entities, such as municipalities, 
banks or other lending institutions, and homeowners' insurance 
companies. Unlawful discriminatory housing practices include, among 
others, refusing to sell, rent or finance housing; discriminating in 
the terms or conditions of a sale or rental; publishing notices or 
advertisements that indicate any preference, limitation or 
discrimination; falsely representing that a dwelling is not available; 
inducing or attempting to induce any person to sell or rent by making 
representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the 
neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, 
religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin; and 
discriminatory zoning or land use regulations. In addition, the FHA 
makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of handicap by refusing 
to allow reasonable modifications to housing premises or to make 
reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, and services. 
The statute also requires that multifamily dwellings be constructed in 
ways that are accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. 

The Section is involved in the enforcement of the FHA through a variety 
of mechanisms. The FHA allows DOJ to bring suit where there is reason 
to believe that a person or entity has engaged in a pattern or practice 
of discrimination, or where a denial of rights to a group of persons 
raises an issue of general public importance. DOJ may sue for 
preventive relief, monetary damages to the aggrieved persons, and civil 
penalties. The Section may also be involved in individual claims of 
discrimination. Individuals who believe they have been injured by a 
discriminatory housing practice may file complaints with the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is to investigate each 
complaint. If the complaint cannot be conciliated, HUD is required to 
determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a 
discriminatory housing practice has occurred. If HUD determines that 
reasonable cause exists, it must issue a charge of discrimination; 
otherwise, the complaint is dismissed. An administrative hearing on the 
charge will be held, unless either the complainant or respondent elects 
to have the case heard in federal court. Where either party has made 
such an election, DOJ is required to bring a civil lawsuit on behalf of 
the aggrieved person in federal district court; these are known as 
"election" cases. 

In addition to pattern or practice cases and election cases, the 
Section is involved in cases under the FHA in several other ways. The 
FHA requires HUD to refer any matter involving a state or local zoning 
or land use law or ordinance to DOJ, rather than issuing a charge of 
discrimination, as well as to refer matters that may be the basis of a 
pattern or practice case. Additionally, DOJ may bring an action to 
enforce a HUD order or a breach of a conciliation agreement, upon 
referral by HUD, and may bring suit to enforce a subpoena on behalf of 
HUD. The statute also requires DOJ to bring suit for relief pending the 
final disposition of a complaint that has been filed with HUD, where 
the Secretary of HUD determines that prompt judicial action is 
necessary. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 3613(e) states that the Attorney 
General "may intervene" when the Attorney General "certifies that the 
case is of general public importance." 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act: 

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)[Footnote 183] prohibits 
creditors from discriminating against applicants in any aspect of a 
credit transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national 
origin, sex, marital status, age, because all or part of the 
applicant's income derives from any public assistance program, or 
because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the 
Consumer Credit Protection Act.[Footnote 184] Compliance with the 
requirements of ECOA is enforced by federal bank regulatory agencies-- 
such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal 
Reserve Board--which have authority over certain types of lenders and 
creditors. Where the agency has been unable to obtain compliance with 
ECOA's nondiscrimination requirement, ECOA authorizes the agency to 
refer the matter to DOJ with a recommendation that a civil action be 
filed. Additionally, the bank regulatory agencies with enforcement 
authority under ECOA are required to refer matters to DOJ where the 
agency has reason to believe that one or more creditors has engaged in 
a discriminatory pattern or practice of discouraging or denying 
applications for credit in violation of ECOA. In turn, DOJ, through its 
Housing Civil Enforcement Section, may bring a civil action for relief--
including actual and punitive damages--when a matter has been referred. 
DOJ may also bring suit whenever there is reason to believe that one or 
more creditors are engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful 
discrimination in violation of ECOA. 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 

The Section may also bring suit to enforce Title II of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964,[Footnote 185] which prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of 
public accommodation, such as motels, restaurants, or movie theaters. 
DOJ may bring suit where there is reasonable cause to believe that a 
pattern or practice of discrimination exists and may obtain injunctive--
but not monetary--relief. 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: 

The Section is also responsible for enforcing the land use provisions 
of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 
[Footnote 186] RLUIPA prohibits state and local governments from 
unjustifiably imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise or 
imposing land use regulations that (1) discriminate against a religious 
assembly or institution by treating them on less than equal terms with 
a nonreligious assembly or institution; (2) discriminate on the basis 
of religion or religious denomination; (3) totally exclude religious 
assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably limit religious 
assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. DOJ is 
authorized to bring a suit for injunctive or declaratory relief to 
enforce the provisions of RLUIPA. The Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section received jurisdiction to enforce land use provisions of RLUIPA 
in 2001. 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)[Footnote 187] provides 
protections for members of the military as they enter active duty. It 
covers issues such as rental agreements, security deposits, eviction, 
installment contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage 
foreclosure, civil judicial and administrative proceedings, motor 
vehicle leases, life insurance, health insurance, and income tax 
payments. SCRA complaints are forwarded to DOJ by a military legal 
assistance office when the office cannot resolve the complaint; the 
Section may then bring suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, which allows 
DOJ to attend to the interests of the United States in any pending 
suit.[Footnote 188] In 2006, the Attorney General transferred authority 
for enforcing the SCRA to the Civil Rights Division; the Assistant 
Attorney General, in turn, delegated that responsibility to the Housing 
and Civil Enforcement Section. 

The Section Initiated Matters under Other Statutes in Addition to the 
FHA, ECOA, and RLUIPA: 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section initiated matters pursuant to 
Titles III and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act, and the SCRA. From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, 
no cases were filed under any of these provisions, except section 504, 
under which one case was filed in conjunction with the FHA.[Footnote 
189] The Section initiated 13 matters under Title III of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public facilities 
based on race, color, religion, or national origin. According to data 
maintained by the Section, these matters involved discrimination based 
on national origin (Hispanic or Latino), race (black or African 
American), and religion (Muslim, Sikh, or other), or were not 
specified, and related to land use/zoning/local government, rentals, 
public accommodations, or other housing or non-housing subjects. 

The Section initiated eight matters under the SCRA, on behalf of 
members of the military, which involved lending or rental issues. The 
Section also initiated five section 504 matters, [Footnote 190] which 
prohibits programs or activities receiving federal assistance from 
discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability.[Footnote 
191] All of these matters involved discrimination on the basis of 
disability and the subject of other housing subject matter, which the 
Section uses to signify issues that relate to a housing complaint, but 
do not involve being denied housing, such as denial of utilities or 
repairs. Section officials explained section 504 matters are rare and 
are referred to the Section from HUD. The Section initiated four 
matters under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[Footnote 192] 
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and 
national original in programs and activities receiving federal 
financial assistance.[Footnote 193] Primary responsibility for prompt 
and vigorous enforcement of Title VI rests with the head of each 
department and agency administering programs of federal financial 
assistance and such cases require a referral to the Section from HUD. 
The matters initiated under Title VI involved discrimination based on 
disability, national origin (Hispanic or Latino), and race (black or 
African American), in land use/zoning/local government or other housing 
or non-housing subject matters. The Section initiated one matter 
involving the criminal interference with housing rights,[Footnote 194] 
which related to discrimination based on race (black or African 
American) and harassment issues. Section officials explained that such 
cases may be referred from the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights 
Division of DOJ. 

Time Spent on Matters, Cases, and Other Activities from Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2007: 

During fiscal years 2001 through 2007, about 48 percent of the total 
time that Housing and Civil Enforcement Section staff charged to cases, 
matters, and other activities was spent on cases, about 17 percent on 
matters, and about 34 percent on other activities such as outreach and 
professional development. As shown in table 44, of the time charged to 
matters during the 7-year period, the Section charged about 70 percent 
of its time to matters initiated under the FHA. Matters involving 
allegations under ECOA or allegations under ECOA and the FHA comprised 
about 19 percent of the time charged. The Section staff charged about 5 
percent of their time to matters involving allegations under Title II 
and about 5 percent to those under RLUIPA. 

Table 44: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of Time 
Charged to Matters by Statute for Fiscal Years 2001-2007: 

Statute: FHA; 
2001: 63; 
2002: 74; 
2003: 73; 
2004: 69; 
2005: 75; 
2006: 68; 
2007: 66; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 70. 

Statute: ECOA; 
2001: 12; 
2002: 5; 
2003: 12; 
2004: 13; 
2005: 7; 
2006: 13; 
2007: 9; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 10. 

Statute: FHA and ECOA; 
2001: 19; 
2002: 10; 
2003: 2; 
2004: 3; 
2005: 3; 
2006: 8; 
2007: 12; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 9. 

Statute: Title II; 
2001: 3; 
2002: 8; 
2003: 4; 
2004: 5; 
2005: 8; 
2006: 6; 
2007: 2; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 5. 

Statute: RLUIPA; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 2; 
2003: 8; 
2004: 7; 
2005: 6; 
2006: 6; 
2007: 6; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 5. 

Statute: Total; 
2001: 97; 
2002: 99; 
2003: 99; 
2004: 97; 
2005: 99; 
2006: 101; 
2007: 95; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 99. 

Source: GAO analysis of Division ICM data. 

Notes: Two hours of time charged were not provided. Time does not equal 
100 percent, as the statutes and statute combinations to which the 
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section devoted less than 1 percent of 
its time are not included. Those statutes and statute combinations are: 
SCRA, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Criminal Interference 
with Housing Rights, the FHA and RLUIPA, Title VI and the FHA, Title VI 
and section 504, Title VI, Title III and ECOA, Title III, Title II and 
the FHA, and section 504. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section professional staff, including section chief, deputies, special 
counsel, attorneys, legal support staff, legal assistants, and law 
clerks, and any staff unique to a section. 

In September 2009, Section officials stated that while the current time 
data for the 7-year period are different from the data we obtained in 
September 2008 and reported in this table in part due to revisions to 
the data, they agreed that Section staff spent most of their time on 
the FHA matters, followed by ECOA, and then RLUIPA or Title II, 
depending on the year. 

[End of table] 

The Section spent at least three-quarters of all time spent on cases on 
pattern or practice cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Fourteen 
percent of the Section's time was spent on election cases that had an 
additional allegation of pattern or practice. Table 45 shows the 
percentages of case related time charged by Section staff by case type. 

Table 45: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of Time 
Charged by Case Type for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Case type: Amicus Participation; 
FY2001: 4; 
FY2002: 3; 
FY2003: 0; 
FY2004: 0; 
FY2005: 0; 
FY2006: 0; 
FY2007: 0; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 1. 

Case type: Election Case; 
FY2001: 14; 
FY2002: 5; 
FY2003: 5; 
FY2004: 4; 
FY2005: 11; 
FY2006: 12; 
FY2007: 9; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 8. 

Case type: Enforcement; 
FY2001: 0; 
FY2002: 0; 
FY2003: 0; 
FY2004: 0; 
FY2005: 1; 
FY2006: 0; 
FY2007: 0; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 0. 

Case type: Pattern or Practice; 
FY2001: 68; 
FY2002: 77; 
FY2003: 81; 
FY2004: 85; 
FY2005: 74; 
FY2006: 71; 
FY2007: 67; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 75. 

Case type: Pattern or Practice & Election; 
FY2001: 12; 
FY2002: 12; 
FY2003: 14; 
FY2004: 10; 
FY2005: 14; 
FY2006: 15; 
FY2007: 22; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 14. 

Case type: Other[A]; 
FY2001: 2; 
FY2002: 3; 
FY2003: 0; 
FY2004: 0; 
FY2005: 0; 
FY2006: 3; 
FY2007: 2; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 1. 

Case type: Total; 
FY2001: 100; 
FY2002: 100; 
FY2003: 100; 
FY2004: 99; 
FY2005: 100; 
FY2006: 101; 
FY2007: 100; 
Percent of total time charged over the 7-year period: 99. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Twelve hours were attributed to the category "not provided." In 
some cases, the percentage was less than .05 percent. For example, 1 
percent of hours charged in 2005 were charged to Enforcement; however, 
overall for the 7-year period, less than 1 percent of total time was 
charged to Enforcement. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to 
rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section professional staff, including the section chief, deputies, 
special counsel, attorneys, legal support staff, legal assistants, law 
clerks, and any staff unique to the section. 

Other includes the following case types and case type combinations: 
amicus and pattern or practice; defend other federal agency; 
enforcement and pattern or practice; Immigration and Nationality Act 
appeals; and prompt judicial action. 

[End of table] 

Reasons the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters: 

Using ICM data, we were unable to readily determine the reasons that 
the Section closed approximately 1,070 matters from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007 because this information was not maintained in the system. 
[Footnote 195] However, on the basis of interviews with agency 
officials and our review of 60 Housing closed matter files, we 
determined that the Section usually closed matters for one or more of 
the following reasons: (1) a lack of merit; (2) no further action was 
warranted (e.g., because the matter was referred to another section, or 
the parties settled); (3) the referral was returned to the referring 
agency for administrative resolution (e.g., the accused took actions to 
resolve the allegations); or (4) there was insufficient evidence of a 
pattern or practice. Housing officials stated that although HUD 
election referrals are generally filed as cases, they may be closed as 
matters if (1) the parties settled early in the process and DOJ did not 
sign the settlement agreement, or (2) HUD withdrew the charge. We 
reviewed the matter files of 10 closed election matters, and although 
we were not able to generalize from this sample, we found that 7 of the 
10 files confirmed these reasons for closure. For example, in one 
election matter file we reviewed, the complainant alleged 
discrimination based on disability and HUD later withdrew the complaint 
in light of newly discovered evidence. The remaining three election 
files reviewed were initiated prior to fiscal year 2001 and closed 
either because (1) the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section asked HUD 
to follow up on an investigation, as some of the allegations were 
unclear, and HUD never issued a new determination of reasonable cause; 
or (2) the investigation was open for over 2 years, and it was 
determined no further action was warranted. 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section's Work on Cases Filed Prior 
to 2001: 

According to ICM data, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed 
137 cases as plaintiff prior to fiscal year 2001 that remained open 
during the time period of our review. Section officials explained that 
once a case has been resolved, during the term of a consent decree, the 
Section monitors the defendants' compliance with the consent decree's 
various provisions. The cases that remained open involved the FHA, ECOA 
and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, 132 cases 
involved the FHA, 7 involved ECOA, and 3 involved Title II.[Footnote 
196] The cases remaining open under the FHA involved a variety of 
subject matters. Most involved rental issues (71 of 132), followed by 
cases involving the Section's testing program (27 of 132).[Footnote 
197] Most of the FHA cases were election cases (58 of 132), followed by 
pattern or practice cases (51 of 132).[Footnote 198] Other cases 
involved the Section's enforcement of an order or decision (an order, 
consent decree, or some type of agreement issued by an administrative 
law judge to collect money owed or to perform a service/duty) or a 
prompt judicial action or enforcement matter.[Footnote 199] All of the 
ECOA and Title II cases were pattern or practice cases. The Section 
also participated in 12 cases as amicus curiae and 1 case as plaintiff 
intervenor that were filed before fiscal year 2001. Table 46 shows the 
137 cases remaining open from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, by 
statute and government role. 

Table 46: Cases Remaining Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by 
Statute and Government Role: 

Statutes: ECOA; 
Government Role: Amicus; 
Total: 1. 

Statutes: ECOA; 
Government Role: Plaintiff; 
Total: 2. 

Statutes: ECOA Total; 
Total: 3. 

Statutes: Title II; 
Government Role: Amicus; 
Total: 2. 

Statutes: Title II; 
Government Role: Plaintiff; 
Total: 3. 

Statutes: Title II Total; 
Total: 5. 

Statutes: FHA; 
Government Role: Amicus; 
Total: 8. 

Statutes: FHA; 
Government Role: Plaintiff; 
Total: 127. 

Statutes: FHA; 
Government Role: Plaintiff - Intervenor; 
Total: 1. 

Statutes: FHA Total; 
Total: 136. 

Statutes: FHA and ECOA; 
Government Role: Amicus; 
Total: 1. 

Statutes: FHA and ECOA; 
Government Role: Plaintiff; 
Total: 5. 

Statutes: FHA and ECOA Total; 
Total: 6. 

Statutes: Grand Total; 
Total: 150. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Resources from Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

According to data provided by the Division, the staff resources 
available to the Housing Section showed little fluctuation over the 7- 
year period. As shown in table 47, the total number of permanent 
positions available in the Section remained at 100 during the first 4 
years and then declined to 98 in the last 3 years. 

Table 48: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Historical Track of 
Available Resources (dollars in thousands): 

Resources[A]: Permanent Positions; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 98. 

Resources[A]: Salaries and Expenses; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 13,295; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 13,963; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 14,278; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 14,594; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 14,342; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 13,541; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 14,168. 

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

[A] Salaries and Expenses. 

[End of table] 

The number of on-board staff, shown in table 48, generally decreased 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. However, the number of on-board 
attorneys was lowest in fiscal year 2003 (40). The Division stated that 
in fiscal year 2005 the Division had granted voluntary early retirement 
authority along with a voluntary separation incentive payment of 
$25,000. Over the 7-year period, the number of attorneys decreased from 
49 to 41 and the number of professionals in the Section remained 
relatively constant, fluctuating between 31 and 27. 

Table 48: Number of On-board Staff for Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Position[A]: Attorney; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 49; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 45; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 40; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 46; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 46; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 41; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 41. 

Position[A]: Professional; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 29; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 30; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 29; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 31. 

Position[A]: Clerical; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 10. 

Position[A]: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 93; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 89; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 78; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 85; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 85; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 78; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 82. 

Source: Division on-board data for the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section. 

[A] On-board statistics reflect the official numbers of staff at the 
end of the fiscal years. The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 
keeps statistics on the average on-board numbers for each fiscal year. 
The average on-board number of attorneys and professionals is based on 
information contained in the "Staffing Pattern Report" the Section 
receives from Human Resources. If the Section receives 10 reports for a 
fiscal year, it totals the number of on board attorneys and 
professionals and then divides each by the number of received reports ( 
in this case 10).The Section has been generating these numbers in this 
manner since fiscal year 2003. The Section's statistics show the 
following average on-board attorney positions: fiscal year 2003--42; 
fiscal year 2004--42; fiscal year 2005--43; fiscal year 2006--42; and 
fiscal year 2007--41, and the following average on-board professional 
positions: fiscal year 2003--28; fiscal year 2004--27; fiscal year 
2005--28; fiscal year 2006--29; and fiscal year 2007--30. 

[End of table] 

In addition, the attrition rates for Section staff fluctuated over the 
7-year period, as shown in table 49. The attrition rate for Section 
attorneys was highest in fiscal years 2003 and 2007, and attrition was 
at the lowest level in fiscal year 2001. 

Table 49: Percentage of Attrition for Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section by Position and Fiscal Year: 

Position: Attorney; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 27. 

Position: Professional; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 29; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 22; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 28; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 10. 

Position: Clerical; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 25; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 33; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 33; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 44; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 25. 

Source: Division attrition data. 

Notes: The Section's attrition rates include employees who had 
separated from the Division (e.g., resignation, transfer to another 
federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 
section within the Division. 

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section: 

Statutes Enforced by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

The Voting Section is responsible for the enforcement of federal voting 
rights statutes, including statutory provisions designed to safeguard 
the right to vote of racial and language minorities, disabled and 
illiterate persons, and overseas and military personnel. The Voting 
Section is also charged with the responsibility for enforcing federal 
statutes that, among other things, address issues such as voter 
registration, provisional voting, and voter information. 

The Voting Rights Act: 

The purpose of the Voting Rights Act (VRA),[Footnote 200] as 
reauthorized in 2006, is to ensure that the right of all citizens to 
vote, including the right to register to vote and cast meaningful 
votes, is preserved and protected as guaranteed by the Constitution. 
The Voting Section is involved in enforcement of several of its 
provisions. 

* Section 2: 

Section 2 of the VRA[Footnote 201] prohibits discriminatory procedures 
or practices that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote 
on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. 
A violation is proved where, based on a totality of the circumstances, 
political processes leading to nomination or election are not equally 
open to members of the protected classes, in that the members have less 
opportunity to participate in the political process and elect 
candidates of their choice. Prohibited practices and procedures include 
redistricting plans and at-large election systems, poll worker hiring, 
and voter registration procedures, among others, that discriminate on 
the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. 
Section 2 prohibits not only voting practices and procedures that are 
intended to discriminate against the protected classes, but also those 
that have a discriminatory impact. Affected private citizens, as well 
as the Attorney General through the Voting Section, may bring lawsuits 
to obtain court-ordered remedies for violations of section 2. 

* Sections 203, 4(f)(4) and 4(e): 

Collectively known as the "language minority provisions" of the Voting 
Rights Act, sections 203[Footnote 202] and 4(f)(4)[Footnote 203] are to 
enable members of applicable language minority groups to participate 
effectively in the electoral process. Under sections 203 and 4(f)(4), 
covered jurisdictions[Footnote 204] must provide any registration or 
voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or 
information relating to the electoral process, including ballots, in 
the language of the applicable minority group, as well as in English. 
Where the applicable minority language group is Alaska Natives or 
American Indians, and the predominant language is historically 
unwritten, the covered jurisdiction is only required to provide oral 
instructions. Section 4(e)[Footnote 205] prohibits states from 
conditioning the right to vote on English language proficiency for 
persons educated in American-flag schools in which the predominant 
classroom language was other than English. The Attorney General is 
authorized to bring civil actions for appropriate relief for violations 
of these provisions, which is accomplished through the Voting Section. 

* Section 5: 

Under section 5 of the act,[Footnote 206] covered jurisdictions 
[Footnote 207] may not change their election practices or procedures 
until they obtain federal "preclearance" for the change. The act 
provides for either judicial or administrative preclearance. Under the 
judicial mechanism, covered jurisdictions may seek declaratory judgment 
from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that 
the change has neither the purpose nor the effect of discriminating 
against protected minorities in exercising their voting rights. Under 
the administrative mechanism, covered jurisdictions may seek the same 
determination from the Attorney General. The Attorney General may deny 
preclearance by interposing an objection to the proposed change within 
60 days of its submission. In order to terminate or "bailout" from the 
requirements of section 5, jurisdictions may seek a declaratory 
judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia that the jurisdiction meets certain 
statutory standards. To be successful, a bailout applicant must 
demonstrate, for example, that for the previous 10 years all changes 
affecting voting have been reviewed under section 5 prior to their 
implementation and that these changes were not the subject of an 
objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a section 5 
declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of 
Columbia, and that the jurisdiction has made constructive efforts to 
eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register to 
vote and vote, among several other requirements. The Attorney General 
is authorized to consent to an entry of judgment granting the bailout 
if after investigating the Attorney General concludes the jurisdiction 
has complied with all of the statute's requirements. 

* Section 208: 

Section 208[Footnote 208] allows any voter who requires assistance to 
vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write 
to be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice other than the 
voter's employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the 
voter's union. 

* Section 11(b): 

Section 11(b)[Footnote 209] of the Voting Rights Act prohibits persons, 
whether acting under color of law or not, from intimidating, 
threatening, or coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or 
coerce, any person for voting or attempting to vote. Section 11(b) 
further prohibits intimidation, threats, or coercion of those persons 
aiding other persons in voting or exercising certain powers or duties 
under the act. 

Help America Vote Act of 2002: 

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA),[Footnote 210] among other 
things, established a program to provide funds to states to replace 
punch card voting systems, established the Election Assistance 
Commission, and established minimum election administration standards 
for states and units of local government with responsibility for the 
administration of federal elections. Certain HAVA provisions relating 
to voting system standards, provisional voting and voting information 
requirements, and computerized statewide voter registration list 
requirements are to be enforced by the Attorney General. HAVA was 
enacted in 2002 and primary responsibility for its enforcement was 
delegated to the Voting Section. 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)[Footnote 
211] requires states and territories to allow absent uniformed services 
voters and their spouses or dependents, and overseas voters to register 
and vote absentee in federal elections. Under UOCAVA, the Attorney 
General may bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief 
to carry out the act's provisions. 

National Voter Registration Act of 1993: 

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)[Footnote 212] 
requires states[Footnote 213] to adopt certain federal voter 
registration procedures, including allowing voters to register to vote 
by mail, when they obtain driver's licenses, or at offices that provide 
public assistance and services to persons with disabilities and other 
state agencies and offices. The NVRA also contains detailed 
requirements regarding state removal of names from federal registration 
rolls. The Act requires states to have a program to remove ineligible 
voters from voter rolls, but also requires that list maintenance 
programs incorporate specific safeguards, for example, they be uniform, 
non-discriminatory, in compliance with the VRA, and not be undertaken 
within 90 days of a federal election. The Attorney General is 
authorized to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief 
to enforce the provisions of the NVRA, as are private parties. 

Reasons the Voting Section Closed Matters: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section closed 345 matters. 
According to Section officials, the recommendation to close should come 
from the lead attorney and be approved by a reviewer (Section Chief or 
Deputy Section Chief). As previously discussed, through our analysis of 
ICM data we were unable to readily determine the reasons the Voting 
Section closed the 345 matters, because this information was not 
maintained in ICM. However, through interviews with Voting Section 
officials and our analysis of 50 closed matter files, we were able to 
ascertain why the Section usually closed matters. According to Section 
officials, the primary reasons the Section closed matters included: (1) 
no further action was warranted, (2) insufficient evidence to show a 
systemic problem, (3) the matter resolved itself, and (4) corrective 
action was taken by local officials. 

Among the 51 closed matters we reviewed, we identified specific reasons 
to close that fell within each of the four categories reported by 
Section officials. The specific reasons included the following 
examples: NVRA and HAVA claims were incorporated into a pending law 
suit; from post election interviews, the Section could not substantiate 
claims of intimidation; DOJ's concerns were resolved; and the state 
agreed to extend the time to receive and count absentee ballots from 
overseas voters. However, we also identified three matters in which the 
documentation indicated that the Division had not approved the 
Section's recommendation. In one instance, the Division denied further 
investigation on the grounds of limited resources, more pressing 
matters, and the election results were not due to ethnic background of 
the candidate; in the second, it decided not to bring suit; and in the 
third, it did not approve further contact with state authorities on 
this matter.[Footnote 214] Section officials further noted that section 
5 enforcement matters, actions where a covered jurisdiction has failed 
to preclear a voting change with the Voting Section, may have remained 
open, in some instances for 2 to 3 years. The officials said that these 
matters may have remained open because the attorney was waiting for a 
corrective action to be taken by the jurisdiction. The reasons Section 
officials gave for closing the section 5 enforcement matters reviewed 
was that no objection to the proposed change was made. 

Additional Information on Cases in Which the Voting Section 
Participated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Plaintiff Intervenor Case: 

In fiscal year 2001 the Section intervened in one case on behalf of the 
plaintiff, to defend the constitutionality of section 2. The underlying 
litigation had been ongoing since 1991 and the plaintiffs had alleged 
that the defendant city's at-large method of electing members of the 
city council violated section 2. In response, the defendants had 
asserted, among other things, that section 2 of the VRA was 
unconstitutional. 

Defendant Cases: 

The Voting Section participated in 30[Footnote 215] cases as defendant 
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007.[Footnote 216] These cases involved 
several types of claims against the Attorney General and were filed by 
political jurisdictions covered under section 5 of the VRA as well as 
by private litigants; although most cases were filed by jurisdictions 
(17 of 30). 

The largest number of cases in which the Section served as defendant 
(12 of 30) was filed by jurisdictions seeking relief under the 
"bailout" provision in section 4(a) of the VRA, which allows a 
political subdivision to be released from the preclearance requirements 
of section 5 if certain conditions are met. To bailout, a jurisdiction 
must seek a declaratory judgment[Footnote 217] from a three-judge 
District Court in Washington, D.C. It must show that for the previous 
10 years it has not used any forbidden voting test, has not been 
subject to any valid objection under section 5, and has not been found 
liable for other voting rights violations. It must also show that it 
has engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and 
harassment of voters, and similar measures. The Attorney General can 
consent to entry of judgment in favor of bailout if the evidence 
warrants it, though other interested parties are allowed to intervene 
in the declaratory judgment action. Eleven of the bailout cases were 
brought by political subdivisions in Virginia; Voting Section officials 
reported that the United States consented to the declaratory judgment 
in each of these cases. In the last bailout case, a small utility 
district in Texas filed suit seeking to bailout from the VRA's 
preclearance requirements. The district also argued that if the VRA was 
interpreted in a way that meant that the district was ineligible to 
bailout, then section 5 of the VRA was unconstitutional. The case was 
heard by the Supreme Court, which held that the district was eligible 
to bailout from the requirements of section 5 and did not reach the 
question of the constitutionality of section 5. 

In 5 cases, jurisdictions filed actions seeking a declaratory judgment 
under section 5 of the VRA that a change in voting had neither the 
purpose nor effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account 
of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. This is the 
judicial preclearance process--bringing an action in the District Court 
of the District of Columbia--as opposed to an administrative 
preclearance conducted by the Voting Section. All of these cases 
involved states seeking to have redistricting or reapportionment plans 
[Footnote 218] cleared by the court. For example, in one case, after 
the 2000 census, the state of Florida gained an additional two members 
in the House of Representatives and divided the state into different 
electoral districts. Because this constituted a voting change, Florida 
brought an action requesting the court to determine whether the 
congressional reapportionment plan satisfied the standard of section 5. 
After the case was filed, the Attorney General precleared the same 
plan, which the state had also submitted for administrative 
preclearance, consequently making the filed case unnecessary. In 
another case, which was litigated to the Supreme Court, the state of 
Georgia brought an action seeking to preclear its state senate 
redistricting plan. DOJ unsuccessfully argued that Georgia's 
redistricting plan should not be precleared and that the plan's changes 
to the existing boundaries of certain districts unlawfully reduced the 
ability of black voters to elect candidates of their choice. 

The remainder of the cases in which the Section acted as defendant were 
brought by private litigants (13 of 30). Four of these cases related to 
the section 5 preclearance process. In these cases, the plaintiffs 
brought suit seeking to challenge DOJ's preclearance determination, or 
DOJ's request for more information from a covered jurisdiction seeking 
preclearance. For example, after an invalidated primary election, the 
governor of South Carolina issued an executive order setting a special 
primary election, which the State of South Carolina then requested the 
Attorney General review under section 5 of the VRA. Voting Section 
officials informed the South Carolina officials that the Attorney 
General would not object to the proposed change to state election 
procedures. Subsequently, plaintiffs--27 African American voters from 
South Carolina--brought suit challenging the Attorney General's 
decision to preclear the change, which the court held that it could not 
do. 

Several cases (10 of 30) were filed by pro se plaintiffs (those acting 
on their own behalf, without legal representation) against the Attorney 
General, for which the Voting Section acted as defendant because the 
cases related to statutes the Section enforces. For example, in two 
cases, the same pro se plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of 
section 5 and in another case, a plaintiff challenged the 
constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act as a whole. In another pro 
se case, the plaintiff alleged that DOJ had failed to respond to the 
states' failure to implement HAVA-compliant voting procedures and 
requested that the court direct an official in the Voting Rights 
Section to take action to prevent future HAVA violations. It was not 
always clear what claims the plaintiffs were seeking to allege. 
[Footnote 219] 

A final case was filed by a group of individual plaintiffs and a 
nonprofit public interest organization to challenge DOJ's actions with 
respect to its enforcement of HAVA. The plaintiffs filed an action 
against DOJ, along with Pennsylvania state and county defendants. The 
complaint alleged a number of claims against the state and county 
defendants relating to the purchase of new voting machines asserting 
that, among other things, the machines were inaccessible to persons 
with disabilities. The plaintiffs also alleged that DOJ had treated 
Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs, and the county at issue differently than 
it had treated a similar matter in New York, which violated plaintiffs' 
right to due process of law, under the Fifth Amendment. 

Amicus Briefs Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

From fiscal year 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section filed two amicus 
briefs.[Footnote 220] Both of these cases involved the enforcement of 
the preclearance requirement under section 5 and the Section appeared 
on behalf of the plaintiffs. For example, in one case, the state of 
South Dakota, not itself covered by section 5, enacted a legislative 
redistricting plan in 2001 and sought to enforce that plan in Shannon 
and Todd counties, which were subject to section 5, without first 
obtaining the required preclearance. The plaintiffs alleged that the 
state had violated section 2 and 5 of VRA. DOJ filed an amicus brief on 
behalf of the plaintiffs arguing that the state plan was a voting 
change in the covered counties subject to preclearance under section 5. 

The Voting Section's Work on Plaintiff Cases Filed Prior to 2001: 

According to ICM data, the Voting Section filed 25 cases as plaintiff 
prior to fiscal year 2001 that remained open during the time period of 
our review. Complaints for these cases were filed starting in 1976 to 
just shortly before fiscal year 2001. Section officials explained that 
some cases remained open because the Section was monitoring consent 
decrees, and in other cases the Section continued to monitor elections 
in the jurisdictions to ensure continued implementation of procedures 
in accordance with the relevant statute.[Footnote 221] As shown in 
table 50, most of the cases (21 of 25) were filed under the VRA, and 
two cases were filed under the NVRA and UOCAVA, respectively. 

Table 50: Voting Section Plaintiff Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Statute: 

Statutes: Voting Rights Act - 1965; 
Number of cases: 21. 

Statutes: The National Voter Registration Act; 
Number of cases: 2. 

Statutes: The Uniformed And Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act; 
Number of cases: 2. 

Statutes: Total; 
Number of cases: 25. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 51, of the cases filed under the VRA, 15 involved 
section 2 of the VRA, 6 involved section 203 of the VRA, and 1 involved 
both the enforcement of section 5 and section 2 of the VRA.[Footnote 
222] Most (12 of 15) of the cases filed under section 2 of the VRA 
involved the subject of "at-large," which refers to an at-large method 
of election as denying members of the protected class an opportunity 
equal to participate in the political process and elect representatives 
of their choice as other members of the electorate. An additional two 
cases filed under section 2 involved the subject of "other." The 
Section uses the subject "other" to signify cases challenging practices 
other than a method of election, such as voting qualifications that 
deny or abridge the rights of protected groups, discriminatory voting 
registration procedures, or election-day practices that have a 
"disparate impact" (i.e., a greater impact on one group of voters than 
other groups). One case involved the subject "other dilution." The 
Section uses the subject "other dilution" to identify cases alleging 
that the method of election or election plan--other than an at-large 
election system--denies members of the protected class an opportunity 
equal to participate in the political process and elect representatives 
of their choice as other members of the electorate. 

Table 51: Cases Filed under the Voting Rights Act Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Subject: 

Subject: Section 2-At Large; 
Number of cases: 11. 

Subject: Section 2-At Large Section 5-Enforcement; 
Number of cases: 1. 

Subject: Section 2-other dilution; 
Number of cases: 1. 

Subject: Section 2-other; 
Number of cases: 2. 

Subject: Section 203; 
Number of cases: 6. 

Subject: Total; 
Number of cases: 21. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 52, the (15) cases remaining open that were filed 
under section 2 of the VRA involved the protected classes of race (10)--
5 on behalf of blacks or African Americans,[Footnote 223] 3 on behalf 
of American Indians or Alaska Natives, and 1 on behalf of Arabs and 1 
Hispanics, respectively--and language minority (5)--4 on behalf of 
Spanish speakers and 1 on behalf of Native Americans. 

Table 52: Cases Filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Prior to 
Fiscal Year 2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by 
Protected class: 

Protected class: Race-African American; 
Number of Cases: 5. 

Protected class: Race-American Indian Or Alaska Native; 
Number of Cases: 3. 

Protected class: Race-Arab; 
Number of Cases: 1. 

Protected class: Race-Hispanic; 
Number of Cases: 1. 

Protected class: Total; 
Number of Cases: 10. 

Protected class: Language Minority-Spanish; 
Number of Cases: 4. 

Protected class: Language Minority-Native American; 
Number of Cases: 1. 

Protected class: Total; 
Number of Cases: 5. 

Protected class: Grand Total; 
Number of Cases: 15. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

[End of table] 

Most cases filed under section 203[Footnote 224] and that remained open 
during the period of our review involved Native Americans (5 of 6), and 
one case involved Spanish speakers. Section 203 requires covered 
jurisdictions to provide bilingual written materials and other 
assistance for elections (e.g., ballots) in the language of the 
applicable minority group or oral instructions in the case of Alaska 
Natives or American Indians. 

Time Spent on Matters and Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

The percentage time spent by the Section on matters fluctuated over the 
time period. As shown in table 53, over half of the total time spent on 
matters during the 7-year period was reported in fiscal years 2003 
through 2005. 

Table 53: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Matters from 
Fiscal Year 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year: 

Matters: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 20; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 11; 
Fiscal year: Total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not 
sum to 100 due to rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

[End of table] 

Over the 7-year period, the proportion of the total time reported spent 
on cases fluctuated. As shown in table 54, the percentage of the total 
time spent on cases declined from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005, 
and then began increasing. Thirty-eight percent of the total time spent 
on cases was reported in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

Table 54: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Cases from 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year: 

All Cases: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 20; 
Fiscal year: Total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not 
sum to 100 due to rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

[End of table] 

Of the total time spent on cases shown in table 55, the Section 
reported spending approximately 85 percent on cases in which it was the 
plaintiff and about 12 percent on cases in which it was a defendant. 
[Footnote 225] The total time the Section reported it spent on 
plaintiff cases fluctuated during the 7-year period with over 40 
percent of the time reported in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

Table 55: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Plaintiff 
Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year: 

Plaintiff cases: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 21; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 20; 
Fiscal year: Total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not 
sum to 100 due to rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

[End of table] 

The time spent on defendant cases, as shown in table 56, also 
fluctuated during the time period. Seventy percent of the total time 
spent on defendant cases during these years was reported from fiscal 
years 2002 through 2004, over half of which was reported in fiscal year 
2002 alone. 

Table 56: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Defendant 
Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year: 

Cases: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 36; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 14; 
Fiscal year: Total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

[End of table] 

Voting Section Resources Available from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

According to data provided by the Division, the staff resources 
available to the Voting Section fluctuated from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. As shown in table 57, the total number of permanent 
positions available in the Section was highest (105) during each of the 
first 4 years and then declined to a low of 98 in fiscal year 2007. 
Voting Section officials confirmed the fluctuations in staff, 
explaining that the Section has the largest number of positions during 
the periods when it is reviewing redistricting plans after a census. 
After the Section completed this work, it lost positions, which DOJ 
transferred to its Civil Division. 

Table 57: Voting Section: Historical Track of Available Resources: 

Resources: Permanent positions; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 105; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 102; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 102; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 98. 

Resources: Salaries and expenses; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 12,158; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 13,242; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 13,596; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 14,123; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 13,720; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 11,758; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 11,810. 

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Note: Salaries and Expenses, dollars in thousands. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 58, the number of Voting Section staff on board at 
the end of each fiscal year also fluctuated over the 7-year period. The 
number of attorneys reached its lowest levels in fiscal year 2005--the 
year in which the Division granted voluntary early retirement authority 
along with a voluntary separation incentive payment of $25,000. The 
number of professionals in the Section declined steadily, reaching a 
low of 20 in fiscal year 2007, half the number of professionals in 
fiscal year 2001. 

Table 58: Number of On-board Staff for Voting Section by Position and 
Fiscal Year: 

Position: Attorneys; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 41; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 43; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 39; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 36; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 33; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 34; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 38. 

Position: Professionals; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 40; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 35; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 32; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 31; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 28; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 26; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 20. 

Position: Clerical; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 16; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 16; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 15; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 16; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 15; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 14; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 13. 

Position: Total; 
Fiscal Year: 2001: 97; 
Fiscal Year: 2002: 94; 
Fiscal Year: 2003: 86; 
Fiscal Year: 2004: 83; 
Fiscal Year: 2005: 76; 
Fiscal Year: 2006: 74; 
Fiscal Year: 2007: 71. 

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

Note: Staff on-board reflects the official numbers as of the last day 
of each fiscal year. 

[End of table] 

In addition, the attrition rates for Section staff, shown in table 59, 
fluctuated over the 7-year period. The rate for Section attorneys was 
highest in fiscal years 2005 through 2007, reaching its highest level 
in 2005. The Division noted that in fiscal year 2005, it was granted 
voluntary early retirement and voluntary separation authority, which 
contributed to the rate of attrition that year. 

Table 59: Percentage of Attrition for Voting Section by Position and 
Fiscal Year: 

Position: Attorney; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2005[A]: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 21. 

Position: Professional; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 20; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 20; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2005[A]: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 32; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 35. 

Position: Clerical; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2005[A]: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 14. 

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Notes: The Section's attrition rates include employees who had 
separated from the Division (i.e., resignation, transfer to another 
federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 
section within the Division. 

Numbers have been rounded to nearest whole number. 

[A] In fiscal year 2005, the Division granted voluntary early 
retirement authority along with a voluntary separation incentive 
payment of $25,000. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Special Litigation Section: 

Statutes Enforced by the Special Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2007: 

The Special Litigation Section was responsible for the enforcement of 
federal civil rights statutes in four major areas--institutional 
conditions, the conduct of law enforcement agencies, access to 
reproductive health facilities and places of worship, and the exercise 
of religious freedom of institutionalized persons. Specifically, the 
Section enforced provisions in the following statutes: 

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act: 

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)[Footnote 226] 
provides the Attorney General with the authority to bring lawsuits 
where there is a pattern or practice of egregious and flagrant 
conditions that deprive institutionalized persons of their federal or 
constitutional rights. These institutions include facilities for 
individuals who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled, nursing 
homes, juvenile correctional facilities, and adult jails or 
prisons,[Footnote 227] which are owned or operated by, or on behalf of, 
state and local governments. Before commencement of a suit under CRIPA, 
the Attorney General is required to take several steps. Among other 
things, at least 7 days before an investigation begins, the Attorney 
General is to notify, in writing, the appropriate state officials of 
the intention to commence an investigation and, during that time, the 
Attorney General is required to make efforts to consult with the 
jurisdiction about assistance from the United States to correct the 
conditions and encourage the appropriate officials to take corrective 
actions. Forty-nine days before filing any complaint, the Attorney 
General is to notify the appropriate state or local government of the 
alleged unlawful conditions, and minimum necessary remedial measures. 
Lastly, the Attorney General must personally sign the complaint. The 
Attorney General has the authority to obtain equitable relief in a 
lawsuit, which is carried out through the Special Litigation Section. 

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (14141) 
[Footnote 228] authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit for 
equitable and declaratory relief where there has been a pattern or 
practice of conduct by law enforcement or officials responsible for the 
administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles to 
deprive persons of their rights under the Constitution or federal law. 
As such, the Special Litigation Section has the authority to obtain 
identical relief under CRIPA and this act with respect to incarcerated 
juveniles. Actions under this statute regarding conduct by law 
enforcement can involve, among other issues, systemic problems such as 
excessive force, false arrest, and discriminatory harassment, stops, 
searches and arrests. 

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 

The Special Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing Title III 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[Footnote 229] which prohibits 
discrimination in public facilities on the basis of race, color, 
religion, or national origin. 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968: 

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968[Footnote 230] 
authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit to remedy a pattern or 
practice of discrimination based on race, color, religion, national 
origin, or gender by law enforcement agencies receiving federal 
financial assistance. Relief may include, among other things, the 
repayment of federal funds. 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994: 

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE)[Footnote 
231] prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that 
injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or 
provide reproductive health services and to exercise the First 
Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. 
The Act also prohibits intentional damage or destruction of a facility 
providing reproductive health services or a place of religious worship. 
The Attorney General is authorized to seek various forms of civil 
relief against violators of FACE, as may persons who are injured by the 
unlawful activities. 

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: 

The Special Litigation Section is involved in enforcing section 3 of 
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 
(RLUIPA),[Footnote 232] which protects the rights of free exercise of 
religion for institutionalized persons. Section 3 prohibits a state or 
local government from imposing a substantial burden on the religious 
exercise of an institutionalized person, unless the government can 
demonstrate that the imposition furthers a compelling interest and is 
the least restrictive means available to further that interest. DOJ is 
authorized to bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief; 
private individuals may also seek remedies for violations of RLUIPA. 
Although RLUIPA was enacted in 2000, the Section was involved in 
enforcing similar provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
of 1993[Footnote 233] before it was declared unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court. 

Reasons the Special Litigation Section Closed Matters: 

We were unable to readily determine the reasons why the Section closed 
over 700 matters[Footnote 234] using ICM data because this information 
is not maintained in the system. However, interviews with agency 
officials and our review of 51 randomly selected Special Litigation 
Section typically closed matter files provided information on the 
reasons why the Special Litigation Section closed matters. According to 
Section officials, the primary reasons matters were closed were lack of 
sufficient evidence to show a pattern or practice of unlawful 
conditions, no current evidence of problems, or corrective action had 
been taken by the relevant jurisdiction. Our review of 51 Special 
Litigation Section closed matter files identified examples of each of 
these reasons. The most frequently recorded summary reason to close a 
matter as identified in the file documentation was "no further action 
warranted" (12). Accompanying documents usually provided further 
explanation of why no further action was warranted and this information 
reflected the specific reasons to close identified by Section 
officials.[Footnote 235] 

Special Litigation Section officials further explained the Section's 
use of these reasons to close matters within the context of the 
statutory prerequisites that it was required to meet to open an 
investigation. They noted that evidence might be insufficient to show a 
pattern or practice of discrimination or misconduct because it was 
difficult to gather evidence of systemic problems. Furthermore, 
officials said that if the Section received dated information but had 
no evidence of recent problems (e.g., if in 2009 an investigator were 
to receive evidence of three suicides that occurred in a jail in 2005), 
the Section would consider this information to be an indication that 
there possibly had been a problem. Accordingly, they would close the 
matter, but keep monitoring the situation (e.g., by using online news 
alerts) to identify evidence of current allegations of problems. In 
addition, with regard to preliminary investigations, officials said 
that the Special Litigation Section would close the investigation if 
officials believed that a jurisdiction recognized a problem existed and 
fixed it (e.g., the jurisdiction fired the sheriff, provided funds to a 
nursing home, or implemented an initiative to stop certain behaviors 
within an agency). In such instances, the Section would close the file 
and monitor the jurisdiction to ensure that reform was effective. 

Special Litigation Section's Work on Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001: 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section 
continued to participate in 66 cases in which the complaint or brief 
had been filed prior to 2001 and remained open for at least part of the 
7-year period.[Footnote 236] As shown in table 60, these cases involved 
three of the Section's areas of responsibility--institutional 
conditions, the conduct of law enforcement agencies, and access to 
reproductive health facilities and places of worship. The largest 
number of cases (47 of 66) involved institutional conditions; 14 cases 
involved access to reproductive health facilities and 4 involved the 
conduct of law enforcement agencies. 

Table 60: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001 by Facility Type: 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Developmental disabilities 
facility; 
Total: 14. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Mental health facility; 
Total: 6. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Nursing home; 
Total: 2. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Jail; 
Total: 13. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Prison; 
Total: 7. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Juvenile correctional 
facility; 
Total: 4. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Juvenile justice system[A]; 
Total: 1. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: 
Total; Total: 47. 

Facility type: Access to reproductive health facilities and places of 
religious worship: Clinic; 
Total: 14. 

Facility type: Conduct of law enforcement agency[B]: Law enforcement 
agency; 
Total: 4. 

Facility type: Unable to determine; 
Total: 1. 

Facility type: Grand Total; 
Total: 66. 

Sources: GAO analysis of ICM data and Special Litigation Section 
documentation. 

[A] This case involved the entire juvenile correctional system of a 
state. 

[B] The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies 
includes one facility type in ICM--law enforcement agency. Therefore, 
the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of law 
enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility 
type law enforcement agency. 

[End of table] 

The Section participated as plaintiff in 56 (of 66) cases, as plaintiff 
intervenor in 6 cases, and as amicus curiae in 4 cases. As shown in 
table 61, the Section filed complaints, as plaintiff, in cases 
involving three of its four areas of responsibility and diverse 
facility types. Five of the 6 cases in which the Section participated 
as plaintiff intervenor fell under institutional conditions--3 involved 
prisons and 2 involved facilities for persons with developmental 
disabilities--and the sixth case involved a clinic under the Section's 
responsibility for access to reproductive health care facilities. The 4 
cases in which the Section filed amicus briefs involved institutional 
conditions in facilities for persons with developmental disabilities 
(2), a mental health facility, and a nursing home. 

Table 61: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 
2001, by Government Role and Facility Type: 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Developmental disabilities 
facility; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 10; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: 2; 
Government role: Amicus: 2; 
Government role: Total: 14. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Mental health facility; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 5; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: [Empty]; 
Government role: Amicus: 1; 
Government role: Total: 6. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Nursing home; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 1; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: [Empty]; 
Government role: Amicus: 1; 
Government role: Total: 2. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Jail; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 13; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: [Empty]; 
Government role: Amicus: [Empty]; 
Government role: Total: 13. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Prison; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 4; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: 3; 
Government role: Amicus: [Empty]; 
Government role: Total: 7. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Juvenile correctional 
facility; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 5; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: [Empty]; 
Government role: Amicus: [Empty]; 
Government role: Total: 5. 

Facility type: Institutional conditions: Total; 
Government role: Total: 47. 

Facility type: Access to reproductive health facilities and places of 
religious worship: Clinic; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 13; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: 1; 
Government role: Amicus: [Empty]; 
Government role: Total: 14. 

Facility type: Conditions of confinement: Law enforcement agency; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 4; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: [Empty]; 
Government role: Amicus: [Empty]; 
Government role: Total: 4. 

Facility type: Unable to determine; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 1; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: [Empty]; 
Government role: Amicus: [Empty]; 
Government role: Total: 1. 

Facility type: Grand Total; 
Government role: Plaintiff: 56; 
Government role: Plaintiff Intervenor: 6; 
Government role: Amicus: 4; 
Government role: Total: 66. 

Sources: GAO analysis of ICM data and Special Litigation Section 
documentation. 

[End of table] 

All 66 cases were open for some period during our review. According to 
the ICM data, as of May 28, 2008, the files for 45 cases were closed; 
19 cases were being monitored for compliance; and for 2 cases the 
parties agreed to a settlement and the file remained open. 

Time Spent on Matters and Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Aggregate data on time spent by Special Litigation staff on matters and 
cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 showed that the Section spent 
the greatest percentage of time on those matters and cases involving 
institutional conditions. However, the proportion of time varied by 
facility type within this area of responsibility and in relation to the 
time spent enforcing laws related to the conduct of law enforcement 
agencies. 

Aggregate time data for matters: 

According to aggregate time data spent on matters from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007, the Section reported spending the greatest 
percentage of time on matters involving institutional conditions in all 
facility types (62 percent). The remaining percentage of the time was 
spent on matters involving the conduct of law enforcement agencies. 

Table 62: Percentage of Hours Spent on Matters by Facility Type and 
Fiscal Year: 

Area of responsibility: Conditions of confinement; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 53; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 51; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 54; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 61; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 63; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 69; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 75; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 62. 

Area of responsibility: Conduct of law enforcement agencies[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 46; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 47; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 43; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 39; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 37; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 39. 

Area of responsibility: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 97; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 101. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Deleted facility group home (CRIPA), jail/prison (RLUIPA 
matters), and clinic (FACE) where were hours less than .05 percent and 
other, which involved CRIPA, but facility type was not identified and 
combination of hours was less than 1 percent in any fiscal year. 
Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. 

Hours that provided the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

[A] The area of responsibility--conduct of law enforcement agencies 
includes one facility type in ICM--law enforcement agency. Therefore, 
the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of law 
enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility 
type law enforcement agency. 

[End of table] 

The time spent on matters involving institutional conditions (62 
percent) varied by category and facility type by fiscal year. Among 
these matters, the Section reported spending the greatest percentage of 
time on matters involving adult corrections (26 percent) during the 7- 
year period, as shown in table 63. Time spent on matters involving 
jails was about 27 percent of total time reported for fiscal year 2007, 
the highest percentage of time for any facility type that year. Taken 
together, the time reported spent on matters involving facilities for 
persons with developmental disabilities, mental health facilities, and 
nursing homes totaled 23 percent for the 7-year period, but fluctuated 
from year to year. Section officials explained that time spent on these 
matters involved investigating a particular facility, drafting findings 
letters, and engaging in settlement negotiations during the 
investigatory stage, as the majority of these matters were filed as 
cases. The time reported spent on conditions in juvenile correctional 
facilities peaked at 14 percent in fiscal years 2001 and 2004. 
According to Section officials, time spent on juvenile matters usually 
occurred during the investigatory stage, but relatively little time was 
spent on juvenile justice matters. Rather, a significant amount of time 
was spent litigating or monitoring compliance on filed cases, 
information that would be recorded in the case time data. Generally, 
Section officials stated fluctuations in the percentage of time spent 
on these matters across fiscal years may reflect the ebb and flow of 
complaints received in a year, the nature of the allegations, and the 
type of investigations recommended and approved in any given year. 

Table 63: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on 
Institutional Conditions Matters, by Facility Type and Fiscal Year: 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Jail; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 17. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Prison; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 9. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 22; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 22; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 25; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 28; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 36; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 37; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 26. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Developmental disabilities facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 7. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Mental health facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 5. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Nursing home; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 11. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 30; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 22; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 26; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 23. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 
Facility type: Juvenile correctional facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 11. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 
Facility type: Juvenile court; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 2. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 
Facility type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 13. 

Category: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 53; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 51; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 54; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 61; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 63; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 69; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 75; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 62. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Deleted facility group home (CRIPA), jail/prison (RLUIPA 
matters), and clinic (FACE) where hours were less than .05 percent and 
other, which involved CRIPA, but facility type was not identified and 
combination of hours was less than 1 percent in any fiscal year. 
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. Percentages rounded to 
nearest whole number. 

Hours that provided the basis for the percentages include time of all 
section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

[End of table] 

During the 7-year period, 39 percent of the total reported time spent 
on matters involved law enforcement agencies, the highest for any 
single facility type for those years (see table 62). Section officials 
said that matters involving law enforcement agencies were highly 
technical, resource-intensive, generally more time-consuming as 
compared to the Section's other areas of responsibility, and required a 
thorough review by the Division at all stages from pre-investigation 
through resolution. They added that such matters involved significant 
and time-consuming reviews of documents and databases and required that 
Section staff work closely with expert consultants, who review numerous 
documents and reconstruct specific incidents to arrive at conclusions 
about the appropriateness of the level of force used in any given 
incidents. Additionally, Section staff might conduct on-site interviews 
and "ride-along" with police officers. Officials stated that in these 
matters, unlike its work involving institutional conditions, the 
Section is required to present objective evidence to demonstrate a 
factual basis for each issue in technical assistance letters and 
settlement agreements. The time data show that the percentage of time 
spent each fiscal year on these matters declined during the period. 
According to Section officials, this change in the percentage of time 
spent might have been due to fluctuations in the number of complaints 
received; the number of institutional conditions matters received that 
were egregious, resource intensive, and required more of the staff's 
attention; or the additional review of police misconduct 
recommendations by the Division's Front Office. 

Aggregate time data for cases: 

As shown in table 64, of the total reported time spent on cases for the 
7-year period, the Section spent the greatest percentage of time (81 
percent) on cases involving institutional conditions. In addition, 17 
percent of the time spent on cases was spent on cases involving the 
conduct of law enforcement agencies. However, the proportion of time 
spent on each of these two areas of responsibility varied during the 
time period. 

Table 64: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on 
Cases, by Area of Responsibility and Fiscal Year: 

Area of responsibility: Institutional conditions; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 58; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 83; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 84; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 90; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 88; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 92; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 81. 

Area of responsibility: Conduct of law enforcement agencies; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 40; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 26; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 17. 

Area of responsibility: Access to reproductive health; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 1. 

Area of responsibility: Immigration appeals; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 1. 

Area of responsibility: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 99; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 101; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of 
all section staff any, including section chief, deputies, special 
counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and 
any staff unique to a section. 

Total percentages may be less than 100 percent due to exclusion of 
facility type mental retardation and mental health where hours were 
less than .05 percent. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 65, the time spent on cases involving institutional 
conditions (81 percent) varied by category and facility type by fiscal 
year. Over 40 percent of the time was spent on cases involving health 
and social welfare facilities. The greatest percentage of that time (27 
of 41 percent) was spent on cases involving facilities for the 
developmentally disabled. During the 7-year period, the percentage of 
time spent each year on cases involving juvenile correctional 
facilities reached a high of 44 percent in fiscal year 2007. Section 
officials explained that while the Division's emphasis on juvenile 
justice may have been a factor, a more significant factor contributing 
to this increase was the Section's involvement in contested litigation 
related to juvenile justice practices in two states and in regular 
contempt proceedings in another case. 

Table 65: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on 
Institutional Conditions Cases by Facility Type and Fiscal Year: 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Developmental disability facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 32; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 38; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 33; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 20; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 23; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 27. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Mental health facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 11. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Nursing home; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 3. 

Category: Health and social welfare; 
Facility type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 38; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 47; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 53; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 46; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 34; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 39; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 35; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 41. 

Category: Juvenile corrections; 
Facility type: Juvenile correctional facility; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 26; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 37; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 44; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 26. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Prison; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 5. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Jail; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 9. 

Category: Adult corrections; 
Facility type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 22; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 14. 

Category: Grand Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 58; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 83; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 84; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 90; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 88; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 92; 
Fiscal year: 2001-2007: 81. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of 
all section staff, including section chief, deputies, special counsel, 
attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 
unique to a section. 

Total percentages may be less than 100 percent due to exclusion of 
facility type mental retardation and mental health where hours were 
less than .05 percent. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

The percentage of time spent on cases involving the conduct of a law 
enforcement agency was highest in fiscal year 2001 (40 percent) 
followed by fiscal year 2002 (26 percent) (See table 64). According to 
Section officials, during these two years the Section was engaged in 
highly contested litigation that involved racial profiling claims and 
required intensive document analysis. Since this was the first 
contested police department litigation under the Section's police 
misconduct authority, officials said that each issue that arose 
required significant attorney time. 

Special Litigation Section Resources Available from Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

According to data provided by the Division, the number of permanent 
positions available to the Special Litigation Section from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007 increased from fiscal years 2001 through 2002 and 
then remained relatively constant. However, Section officials stated 
that while the official budget data indicated minor fluctuations in 
staff resources, the Section had a number of vacancies for a number of 
years during the 7-year period. 

Table 66: Special Litigation Section: Historical Track of Available 
Resources: 

Resources: Permanent positions; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 63; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 73; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 73; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 73; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 72. 

Resources: Salaries and expenses; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 7,500; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 8,920; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 9,799; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 10,048; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 10,233; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 12,096; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 12,656. 

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Note: Salaries and Expenses, dollars in thousands. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 67, the number of Section staff on board at the end 
of each fiscal year increased from fiscal years 2001 through 2004, and 
then declined in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Section officials 
confirmed that fewer staff were available in the later years of the 7- 
year period, as the number of onboard Special Litigation staff-- 
attorneys, professional, and clerical--decreased in fiscal years 2005, 
2006, and 2007, from higher staff numbers in fiscal years 2003 and 
2004. 

Table 67: Number of On-board Staff for Special Litigation Section by 
Position and Fiscal Year: 

Position: Attorneys; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 33; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 47; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 47; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 48; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 41; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 39; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 39. 

Position: Professionals; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 11. 

Position: Clerical; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 10. 

Position: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 52; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 69; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 70; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 73; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 61; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 57; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 60. 

Source: Civil Division, DOJ. 

Note: Staff on-board reflects official numbers as of the last day of 
each fiscal year. 

[End of table] 

In addition, the attrition rates for Section staff varied over the 7- 
year period. The rate for Section attorneys was higher in fiscal years 
2001, 2005, and 2006. The Division noted that in fiscal year 2005, it 
was granted voluntary early retirement and voluntary separation 
authority, which contributed to the rate of attrition that year. 

Table 68: Percentage of Attrition for Special Litigation Section by 
Position and Fiscal Year: 

Position: Attorney; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 26; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2005b: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 18. 

Position: Professional; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2005b: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 25; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 10. 

Position: Clerical; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 44; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 0; 
Fiscal year: 2005b: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 13; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 38. 

Source: Civil Division, DOJ. 

Notes: The Section's attrition rates include employees who had 
separated from the Division (i.e., resignation, transfer to another 
federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 
section within the Division. Percentages were rounded to the nearest 
whole number. 

In fiscal year 2005, the Division granted voluntary early retirement 
authority along with a voluntary separation incentive payment of 
$25,000. 

[End of table] 

A July 2, 2008, joint report by the DOJ Office of the Inspector General 
and Office of Professional Responsibility addressed staffing issues 
confronted by the Special Litigation Section, which occurred within the 
period of our review. The report describes the results of an 
investigation into allegations that political or ideological 
affiliations were considered in hiring, transferring, and assigning 
cases to career attorneys in the Division, including the Special 
Litigation Section. Specifically, it cites issues raised by the Section 
Chief that attorneys were unqualified to work in the Section and the 
Division management changed the attorney assigned to a case. According 
to Section officials, these decisions affected the morale of the 
Section and managers had to take on the work of attorneys. 

Subject Values Used by the Special Litigation Section: 

The Special Litigation uses the ICM subject field to describe the types 
of issues and allegations under investigation in matters initiated and 
cases filed. Table 69 provides a list of the subject values that the 
Section used and descriptions of these values. According to Special 
Litigation Section officials, the information presented describes what 
the code was supposed to mean when it was originally devised by the ICM 
team. 

Table 69: Special Litigation Section Subject Values for Matters and 
Cases Recorded in ICM: 

Subject: Abuse/neglect; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care cases and 
CRIPA/14141 juvenile justice facility cases, this refers to staff's 
physical abuse of residents or staff's failure to properly care for or 
supervise a resident. 

Subject: Access to courts; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA/14141 juvenile justice 
facility cases and CRIPA jail and prison cases, this refers to the 
failure of a facility to provide juveniles, detainees, or prisoners 
with an adequate ability to exercise their legal rights with respect to 
the court system. 

Subject: Accessibility (ADA); 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases, except for 
prisons and jails where CRIPA does not permit the Section to enforce 
federal statutes, this refers to the failure of a facility to provide 
adequate accommodations so that residents with disabilities can access 
facilities or programs. 

Subject: Active treatment; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases involving 
facilities for persons with developmental disabilities, this refers to 
the failure of a facility to provide a program of specialized and 
generic training, treatment, health services, and other services 
directed toward the acquisition of skills necessary for the residents 
to function with as much self-determination and independence as 
possible, and to prevent regression and loss of function. 

Subject: Coercive sexual misconduct; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases and juvenile 
facility cases under both CRIPA and 14141, this refers to sexual acts 
by staff or peers perpetrated on residents, detainees, or inmates 
without consent. 

Subject: Community placement; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care cases, this 
refers to enforcement of the integration mandate of the ADA that 
residents be served in the most integrated setting appropriate to their 
needs and which they do not oppose; most often, if a resident is not 
being served in the most integrated setting, a transition from an 
institution into the community is the remedy. 

Subject: Correctional staffing; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases involving jails 
and prisons, this refers to the direct staffing on the cellblocks; 
the issue usually comes up that detainees or inmates are not adequately 
protected from harm due to insufficient direct staffing and 
supervision. 

Subject: Dental care; 
Description of subject: In all of the Section's CRIPA cases and 
CRIPA/14141 juvenile justice facility cases, this refers to a 
facility's inadequate provision of dental care services to the 
residents of the facility. 

Subject: Diet/nutrition; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases, this refers to a 
facility's failure to provide an adequate diet or nutrition to 
residents who need a specialized diet due to a health condition such as 
diabetes or high blood pressure, or, where inmates are only being 
served one meal a day. In the Section's RLUIPA cases, this refers to a 
facility's failure to provide a diet required by a person's religion, 
such as kosher diets or vegetarian diets. 

Subject: Environment; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases, usually involving 
jails and prisons, it often finds egregious environmental health and 
safety issues, such the presence of vermin or human waste, or an 
environment with insufficient ventilation, which can cause medical 
issues. 

Subject: Excessive force; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases, the Section 
encounters this issue, which involves the use of more force than is 
necessary under the circumstances. The Section sees this issue in many 
of its CRIPA investigations, particularly involving jails, prisons, and 
juvenile justice facilities. The Section does not use this issue code 
when it encounters this issue in its Police Misconduct work, where it 
uses a separate issue, below. 

Subject: Face-obstructive activities; 
Description of subject: In the Section's FACE cases, this issue 
involves efforts by a citizen to block a woman's right to access 
reproductive services. 

Subject: Face-property damage; 
Description of subject: In the Section's FACE cases, this issue 
involves any damage to a clinic by a citizen who is trying to impede a 
woman's right to access reproductive services. 

Subject: Face-violence/threats; 
Description of subject: In the Section's FACE cases, this issue 
involves the use of physical force or verbal threats made by a citizen 
to a woman seeking reproductive services at a clinic. 

Subject: False Claims Act; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care cases, this 
legal action involves a jurisdiction billing the Department of Health 
and Human Services for services it did not, in fact, render to an 
institutionalized person, or to services that were billed that deviated 
so substantially from accepted professional care such that the services 
could be characterized as a failure of care. The Special Litigation 
Section does not pursue False Claims Act cases. Instead, when the 
Section suspects that there may be False Claims Act issues in a matter, 
the Section refers it to the Civil Division, the component which 
enforces this statute. 

Subject: Feeding practices; 
Description of subject: In the Section's health care cases involving 
nursing homes and facilities for persons with developmental 
disabilities, the Section often encounter feeding practices that 
endanger institutionalized persons, such as improperly feeding someone 
who cannot feed him or herself, such that food is aspirated into a 
lung, causing aspiration pneumonia that after repeated episodes often 
leads to death. 

Subject: Fire safety; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases, the Section often 
finds dangerous fire safety issues, such as the lack of sprinklers, 
expired fire extinguishers, or an insufficient avenue of egress in the 
event of a fire. 

Subject: First Amendment; 
Description of subject: This is the primary issue code in all of the 
Section's RLUIPA cases, which involve the free exercise of religion 
issues. The Section's also use this, sometimes, in its CRIPA cases. In 
those cases, there are times when a jurisdiction refuses the Section 
access to speak with the residents of a facility during its 
investigation. In those circumstances, the Section takes the position 
that the jurisdiction is violating the residents' First Amendment right 
to access their government to make a complaint. 

Subject: Grievance; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases involving jails, 
prisons, and juvenile justice facilities, residents have a right to a 
system to make their complaints known. 

Subject: Inmate violence; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA cases involving jails 
and prisons, this issue arises when there is a systemic level of 
violence as a result of inmate-on-inmate fights. 

Subject: Isolation/seclusion; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA work, the Section often 
finds that residents are improperly placed in a locked room by 
themselves, often for a very long period of time, without access to 
adequate services. 

Subject: Juvenile administration; 
Description of subject: Under 14141, the Section's can investigate the 
administration of juvenile justice in a jurisdiction where the Section 
has reason to believe that the is infringing on juveniles' civil 
rights. 

Subject: Juvenile facility; 
Description of subject: In both the Section's CRIPA and 14141 work, the 
Section investigates juvenile detention centers, where youth are held 
before they are adjudicated, and juvenile training centers, where some 
youth are sent following adjudication. 

Subject: Law library; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA work, detainees in jails 
and inmates in prisons are legally entitled to access to certain legal 
materials that may assist them in their efforts to challenge their 
detention or for other related legal matters. 

Subject: Mail tampering; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA work, particularly in 
jails and prisons, residents have legal rights to use the mail; 
institutions have rights to monitor the mail for security risks. The 
Section has received allegations, in certain matters, that inmate mail 
is tampered with so that outgoing information is impermissibly not 
allowed to leave the facility or that incoming mail was impermissibly 
searched or confiscated. 

Subject: Medicaid regs; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care work, the 
Section often cites as the professional standards regulations issued by 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services regarding the requirements that a facility must meet 
in order to maintain federal funding. 

Subject: Medical care; 
Description of subject: In all of the Section's CRIPA work, the Section 
typically evaluates the medical care provided to the residents of a 
facility to assess whether it is legally sufficient. 

Subject: Mental health services; 
Description of subject: In all of the Section's CRIPA work, the Section 
typically evaluates the mental health care services provided to the 
residents of a facility to assess whether it is legally sufficient. 

Subject: Most integrated setting (ADA); 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care work, the 
Section typically assesses whether residents of a facility are being 
served in the most integrated setting appropriate to individual needs, 
as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and confirmed 
by the Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). 

Subject: Numbers of professional staff; 
Description of subject: In all of the Section's CRIPA work, the Section 
evaluates whether there are enough professional staff to provide the 
services that are legally required in the particular facility. 

Subject: Numbers of trained direct care staff; 
Description of subject: In all of the Section's CRIPA work, the Section 
evaluates whether there are enough trained direct care staff to 
adequately and safely supervise the residents of the particular 
facility. 

Subject: Nursing care; 
Description of subject: In all of the Section's CRIPA cases, the 
Section typically evaluates, as part of the medical care, whether the 
nursing care at the facility is legally sufficient. 

Subject: Occupational therapy; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care work, 
particularly with respect to facilities serving persons with 
developmental disabilities, the Section evaluates whether a facility is 
providing adequate services to increase an individual's ability to 
engage in supported employment. Most often, the Section assesses 
communication services under this issue. 

Subject: Overcrowding; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA work, the Section often 
encounters facilities that house more residents than were intended to 
be housed in the facility. 

Subject: Physical therapy; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care work, 
particularly with respect to facilities for persons with developmental 
disabilities, the Section evaluates whether a facility is providing 
adequate physical therapy services to individuals who need them as a 
result of a physical disability. 

Subject: Police-canine; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, the 
Sections evaluates whether a police force is using dogs in a legally 
permissible manner. 

Subject: Police-city; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, the 
Section uses this issue code when it is investigating a city police 
force. 

Subject: Police-Civilian Complaint System and Discipline; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, the 
Section uses this issue code when it is evaluating whether the civilian 
complaint system is legally sufficient; 
it also uses this issue code when it is evaluating whether an officer 
is appropriately disciplined as a result of a finding that a citizen's 
rights were violated. 

Subject: Police-coercive sexual conduct; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, the 
Section uses this issue code when it is investigating whether officers 
are impermissibly coercing sexual conduct from the citizens they are 
interacting with. 

Subject: Police-county; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, the 
Section uses this issue code when it is investigating a county police 
force. 

Subject: Police-discriminatory highway stops; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this code when it is investigating whether officers are 
impermissibly stopping cars on the highways due to discriminatory 
factors, such as race. 

Subject: Police-discriminatory pedestrian stops; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this code when it is investigating whether officers are 
impermissibly stopping pedestrians due to discriminatory factors, such 
as race. 

Subject: Police-discriminatory urban traffic stops; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this code when it is investigating whether officers are 
impermissibly stopping cars on city streets due to discriminatory 
factors, such as race. 

Subject: Police-excessive force; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this issue code when it is investigating whether officers use more 
force than is necessary to subdue a citizen. 

Subject: Police-false arrest; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this issue code when it is investigating whether officers are 
arresting citizens for pretextual reasons that have no basis in the 
facts. 

Subject: Police-improper searches/seizures; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this issue code when it is investigating whether officers are 
searching or seizing property in a way that violates the law. 

Subject: Police-other discriminatory policing; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this issue code when it is investigating allegations of 
discrimination by officers that do not fit into the other codes already 
described. 

Subject: Police-retaliation; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this code when it is investigating allegations that someone has 
been retaliated against for cooperating with the Special Litigation 
Section while the Special Litigation Section was conducting its 
investigation. 

Subject: Police-sheriff; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this code when it is investigating the sheriff and his/her 
officers, often used in connection with investigations of conditions in 
the lock up cells in a jail. 

Subject: Police-state; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this code when it is investigating state police officers. 

Subject: Police-supervisory measures; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it 
uses this code when it is investigating whether the measures that a 
police force uses to supervise its officers is adequate. 

Subject: Police-training; 
Description of subject: In the Section's Police Misconduct work, it use 
this code when it is investigating whether officers are adequately 
trained to do their jobs. 

Subject: Protection from harm; 
Description of subject: In all of its CRIPA cases, the Section uses 
this very broad term to determine whether the residents of a facility 
are provided with adequate safety. This term can encompass whether 
there is staff abuse, whether there is too much resident-on-resident 
violence, whether residents are adequately supervised, and many other 
areas. 

Subject: Psychiatric services; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA work, this issue is a 
bit narrower than the term "mental health services." Psychiatric 
services are provided to residents who have been diagnosed with a 
serious mental illness, whereas mental health services are provided to 
any resident who needs help with a mental health problem, even if there 
hasn't been a psychiatric diagnosis. 

Subject: Psychological services; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA work, especially with 
respect to matters involving facilities for persons with developmental 
disabilities, this issue relates to the services to persons who have 
challenging behaviors and to the services provided to all residents in 
order that they learn skills designed to help them function better in 
their living situation. 

Subject: Psychopharmacology; 
Description of subject: In all of its CRIPA work, the Section evaluates 
the psychoactive medication practices at a facility to ensure that 
dosages are correct, that the medications actually can treat the 
diagnosed problem, the medication error rates, whether particular 
residents are taking many different medications to treat the same 
problem, and whether residents are experiencing negative side effects 
without intervention by the facility. 

Subject: Rehabilitation services; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA work involving 
psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, and juvenile justice facilities, 
it evaluates whether the facility is providing adequate services to 
address the problems that required the resident to be institutionalized 
in the first place. 

Subject: Restraints-chemical; 
Description of subject: In all of its CRIPA work, the Section evaluates 
whether psychoactive medications are impermissibly being used for the 
convenience of staff to sedate residents, instead of treating the 
underlying problem; this issue can also be used when an institution 
uses mace on residents to subdue them when there was no imminent threat 
to the resident or to others. 

Subject: Restraints-physical; 
Description of subject: In all of its CRIPA work, the Section's 
evaluates whether a facility is using undue or unnecessary physical 
restraints on facility residents. Physical restraints include such 
things as soft leather strips used to tie psychiatric patients to 
hospital beds; mittens used to cover the hands of a self abusive 
person; helmets used to prevent a person from banging his or her head 
on the wall; or take down procedures where staff hold a resident on the 
resident's stomach on the floor until calm. 

Subject: Sanitation; 
Description of subject: This issue arises in some of the Section's 
CRIPA work, particularly in jails and prisons, but can arise in its 
health care work. The Section investigates issues such as whether 
laundry is properly cleaned so that it does not spread infection; 
whether dishwashers are using water hot enough to prevent food borne 
illnesses from being spread on dishes and utensils; or whether toilets 
and showers are properly cleaned to prevent the spread of disease. 

Subject: Special Education (IDEA)[A]; 
Description of subject: In the Section's CRIPA health care where there 
are residents under the age of 22 and in its juvenile justice work, the 
Section investigates whether youth with learning disabilities are being 
provided education in accordance with the requirement of this federal 
statute. 

Subject: Speech/Language Therapy; 
Description of subject: In its CRIPA cases involving persons with 
developmental disabilities and in its juvenile justice cases involving 
youth entitled to related services under the IDEA, the Section 
investigates whether appropriate individuals are provided adequate 
services to address disabilities related to the individuals' ability to 
communicate. 

Subject: Substance abuse treatment; 
Description of subject: In its CRIPA psychiatric hospital cases and in 
its juvenile justice cases, the Section investigates whether residents 
with substance abuse diagnoses are being provided adequate substance 
abuse treatment to address their needs. 

Subject: Suicide prevention; 
Description of subject: In all of its CRIPA cases and in its juvenile 
justice cases, the Section investigates whether facilities are 
adequately protecting residents with suicidal or self harming behaviors 
from harm, making sure that environments where suicidal residents are 
housed are free from suicidal hazards and that mental health services 
are provided in an appropriate and timely manner to prevent harm. 

Subject: Vocational training; 
Description of subject: In the Section's matters and cases where there 
are IDEA violations, the Section investigates whether youth are 
provided with adequate vocational training, as required by IDEA. 

Subject: Word Trade Center/Pentagon attacks; 
Description of subject: The Special Litigation Section does not use 
this issue in its ICM data base. This code was added as a value to all 
sections of the Civil Rights Division not long after the September 11, 
2001 attacks. 

Source: Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section. 

[A] Refers to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 
U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Eileen Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Maria Strudwick, Assistant 
Director, and Barbara Stolz, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this 
assignment. David Alexander, Jennifer Andreone, R. Rochelle Burns, 
Michele Fejfar, Emily Hanawalt, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Lara Kaskie, 
Jan Montgomery, Joy Myers, and Janet Temko made significant 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] A case is defined as an activity that has been assigned an 
identification number that has resulted in the filing of a complaint, 
indictment, or information in court. A matter is defined as an activity 
that has been assigned an identification number, but has not resulted 
in the filing of a complaint, indictment, or information in court--for 
example, the investigation of a complaint or an allegation of 
discrimination referred by another federal agency. A complaint outlines 
the facts and legal claims for relief from damages caused, or wrongful 
conduct engaged in, by the defendant. An indictment or information is 
the formal charge made by a prosecutor to initiate a criminal 
proceeding against the accused. 

[2] The Division has 11 sections--10 program-related sections and an 
Administrative Management section. 

[3] A jail is a place of confinement of persons, held in lawful custody 
under the jurisdiction of a local government (e.g., a county), who are 
awaiting trial or convicted of minor offenses. A prison is a state or 
federal place of confinement for persons convicted of serious crimes. 

[4] GAO, Civil Rights Division: Selection of Cases and Reasons Matters 
were Closed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-192] 
(Washington, D.C.: September 2000). 

[5] GAO, Civil Rights Division: Policies and Procedures for 
Establishing Litigation Priorities, Tracking and Managing Casework, and 
Disseminating Litigation Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-00-58R] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2000) and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-192]. 

[6] A nongeneralizable sample may be either a nonprobability sample 
where observations are selected in a manner that is not completely 
random, or a probability sample where random sampling is used, but the 
sample size is too small to allow the results to be generalized to the 
broader population. 

[7] Pub. L. No. 85-315, 71 Stat. 634. 

[8] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1. 

[9] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff - 1973ff-6. 

[10] H.R. Rep. No. 99-765 at 5, 12 (1986). 

[11] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg - 1973gg-10. 

[12] 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-545. 

[13] Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241; Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73. 

[14] 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-35. 

[15] Pub. L. No. 93-508, 88 Stat. 1578. 

[16] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j. 

[17] Pub. L. No. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619. 

[18] H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 13 (1988). Color is a valid protected 
class under various statutes (e.g., Title VII and the Fair Housing 
Act), although separate claims of color discrimination are rare. Such 
claims are usually brought with and subordinated to race discrimination 
claims; for example, in a case of unlawful discrimination on the basis 
of color where an individual has been treated differently on the basis 
of skin tone. 

[19] 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. 

[20] Pub. L. No. 93-495, § 502, 88 Stat. 1500, 1521. 

[21] Pub. L. No. 90-321, 82 Stat. 146 (1968) (codified as amended in 
scattered sections of 15 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C.). 

[22] 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 

[23] 521 U.S. 507 (1997). 

[24] 146 Cong. Rec. S6678-02, S6687-88. 

[25] H.R. Rep. No. 102-242, at 138 (1991). 

[26] The Professional Development Office is within the Office of the 
Assistant Attorney General. This office was established by the 
Assistant Attorney General in 2005 to enhance the training 
opportunities for new and experienced Division attorneys. 

[27] The Employment Litigation Section is legally required to notify 
the charging party when it is not going to pursue a charge so that the 
charging party can pursue private litigation. This notification is made 
by means of a letter from the Division to the charging party or his or 
her attorney and is referred to as a right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 
2000e-5(f)(1). 

[28] As used by the Employment Litigation Section, the term charge 
refers specifically to those allegations of discrimination referred to 
by the EEOC. The Department of Labor (DOL) also refers USERRA 
complaints to the Employment Litigation Section. We use the term 
referral to refer to HUD, EEOC, DOL, and other regulatory agency 
referrals. The more general term allegation of discrimination will be 
used to describe other instances of alleged discrimination. 

[29] By statute, the Employment Litigation Section can investigate and 
file suit in matters involving an individual instance of discrimination 
under section 706 only after receiving a referral from the EEOC. 

[30] In USERRA matters handled by the Employment Litigation Section, a 
recommendation about whether to offer representation to the claimant is 
made. 

[31] The Special Litigation Section does not notify all appropriate 
parties if it decides not to recommend an investigation. 

[32] A complaint filed in court is the initial formal statement that 
starts a lawsuit and that sets forth the allegations made by the 
plaintiff against the defendant and the plaintiff's demand for relief. 

[33] The Special Litigation Section does not notify a defendant by 
letter of DOJ's intent to file a lawsuit. 

[34] Settlement discussions can occur at any time during the process. 
Negotiations held prior to the filing of a formal complaint to initiate 
the lawsuit are referred to as presuit settlement discussions. 

[35] GAO, DOJ's Civil Rights Division: Opportunities Exist to Improve 
Its Case Management System and Better Meet Its Reporting Needs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-938R] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 30, 2009). 

[36] The Employment Litigation Section considers all EEOC charge 
referrals and Department of Labor USERRA referrals as matters even if 
an investigation is not opened. However, the section does not consider 
requests for right-to-sue letters as matters. While a charging party is 
required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, according to 
Section officials, some charging parties may prefer to initiate 
litigation on their own and, in such instances, will request that DOJ 
provide a right-to-sue letter as obtaining a right-to-sue letter is a 
precondition to filing a Title VII claim in federal court. According to 
Employment Litigation Section officials, the section honors such 
requests and issued 14,608 such letters from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007. (Appendix II includes information on the number of right-to-sue 
letters issued each fiscal year by the Section.) 

[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-938R]. 

[38] Individual cases can involve multiple protected classes and 
subjects. 

[39] African American refers to the protected class "black or African 
American." 

[40] One of the cases the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed 
was as plaintiff intervenor against multiple defendants. When the 
Section entered into a consent decree with some of the defendants, it 
created an additional Department of Justice (DJ) number--a unique 
identification number assigned by DOJ when a matter or case is first 
entered into ICM--so it could track both the settlement and the 
remaining ongoing litigation; however, the Section treats this as one 
case, as there was one complaint. 

[41] This includes FHA either solely or in combination with ECOA and 
RLUIPA. 

[42] Rental matters involve discrimination in property that is listed 
for a fee, and can involve issues such as eviction, the discriminatory 
provision of services and facilities occupancy restrictions, and the 
assessment of rental fees based on the number of occupants. 

[43] Seven matters involved both a language minority and a racial 
minority group and in one matter the specific protected class was not 
identified. 

[44] Two cases involved both racial and language minority groups. 

[45] The Division's time data show that from fiscal years 2001 through 
2007, the Section's professional staff charged about 20 percent of 
their time to matters, about 47 percent to cases, and about 33 percent 
to other activities, such as professional development and outreach. 
According to Section officials, the Section Chief and the six deputies 
charge all their time to other activities. Appendix II provides 
information on the time charged to cases and other activities by fiscal 
year. 

[46] In addition to information maintained in ICM, the Section also 
maintains information on USERRA referrals in a word processing file. 
According to the Section, the information generated from the word 
processing file identified that the Section received 262 USERRA 
referrals--122 in fiscal year 2005, 81 in fiscal year 2006, and 59 in 
fiscal year 2007. For purposes of this report, we are reporting on the 
information from ICM--the Division's official case management system. 

[47] According to Employment Litigation Section officials, section 707 
matters are assigned a Department of Justice (DJ) number--a unique 
identification number assigned by DOJ when a matter or case is first 
entered into ICM--and recorded in ICM only after an attorney has spent 
4 hours on them. 

[48] About 220 additional matters were initiated by the Employment 
Litigation Section prior to fiscal year 2001. The Employment Litigation 
Section authorized an investigation for about 90 of these approximately 
220 matters and they remained open during some part of our review 
period. 

[49] We could not determine the number of matters referred to the U.S. 
Attorney's Offices because the Employment Litigation Section does not 
track this information in ICM. 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-938R]. 

[51] An additional 20 section 707 matters were initiated by the 
Employment Litigation Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 
However, because those matters were still open at the time of our 
review, given sensitivity concerns, we did not review certain types of 
information related to these matters, including protected class data. 

[52] According to ICM data, 6 of the matters involved claims of race 
discrimination against whites and 3 against Asians. Information on 
protected class was not included in ICM for 9 of the section 707 
matters. Each matter can involve multiple protected classes (e.g., 
race). 

[53] The Section closed approximately 3,300 matters from fiscal years 
2001 through 2007, of which about 200 were initiated prior to fiscal 
year 2001. 

[54] According to the Employment Litigation Section, size refers to 
both the size of the employer and the parameters of the claim. For 
example, a matter is considered small in size if the employer is small 
and/or the nature of the claim is narrow (e.g., a claim for 1 week of 
back pay). Limited impact refers to the nature of the relief obtainable 
and whether such relief would have an impact on anyone other than the 
charging party. 

[55] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-938R]. 

[56] As previously discussed, because our samples were not 
representative, we were unable to generalize the results to all closed 
matters investigated by the section during the period of our review. 
Nevertheless, our file reviews provided examples of why the section 
closed matters. 

[57] According to a Section Deputy Chief, for a period of time 
following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Division had an 
attorney coordinator who reviewed all complaints of religious backlash. 

[58] The Employment Litigation Section referred one section 706 case to 
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007--U.S. v. City of New York and New York 
City Housing Authority filed on May 31, 2001. 

[59] Individual cases can involve multiple protected classes and 
subjects. 

[60] One of the 11 cases involving claims of race discrimination was a 
lawsuit the Division filed in June 2003 alleging that the University of 
Guam discriminated against 11 individuals by discharging them, denying 
them promotion, and/or retaliating against them on the basis of their 
race and/or national origin. The complainants included eight non- 
Chamorro Caucasians, a non-Chamorro Native American, a non-Chamorro 
African American, and a non-Chamorro Filipina. 

[61] The complaint the Division filed in court did not specify the race 
of the complainant. According to the Employment Litigation Section, the 
complainant was an African American female. 

[62] The complaint also alleged that the city of Indianapolis 
discriminated against two males on the basis of sex with respect to 
promotions to the lieutenant position. 

[63] The Employment Litigation Section referred three pattern or 
practice cases to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District 
of New York--U.S. v. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation 
filed on June 19, 2002; U.S. v. New York City and New York City 
Department of Transportation filed on March 12, 2007; and U.S. v. New 
York City Department of Correctional Services filed on March 15, 2007. 

[64] According to Section officials, pattern or practice cases are 
resource-intensive and complex given that multiple plaintiffs are 
involved; whereas section 706 and USERRA cases typically involve an 
individual plaintiff. 

[65] Employers are liable for employment practices that are 
intentionally discriminatory, as well as those that have the effect of 
being discriminatory, for instance, a physical fitness test that 
eliminates more female than male candidates. 

[66] The two cases alleging sex discrimination against males are the 
same two discrimination cases cited previously regarding white males. 

[67] According to the Employment Litigation section, four USERRA 
referrals were settled but not filed in federal district court. 

[68] The protected class for all USERRA cases is military. 

[69] Three of these cases were related and alleged that the District of 
Columbia government discriminated against three pregnant females on the 
basis of their sex. 

[70] In addition to the HUD election cases, the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section also receives other referrals from HUD involving 
allegations of a pattern or practice of discrimination or allegations 
of discriminatory land use and zoning practices, as well as matters 
involving the enforcement of a HUD order, decision, or conciliation 
agreement. The Section receives pattern or practice referrals involving 
alleged violations of ECOA from bank regulatory agencies, such as the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve Board. 

[71] According to Housing and Civil Enforcement Section officials, 
referrals from other agencies are automatically included in ICM as a 
matter and assigned an official DOJ tracking number; self-initiated 
work becomes a matter after 2 hours of work. 

[72] This includes FHA either solely or in combination with ECOA and 
RLUIPA. 

[73] The remaining 10 percent of the FHA matters involved the 
following. Eighteen of these instances involved nondiscretionary 
referrals (election investigations). In 1 instance, the Section was a 
defendant in impending litigation. In 9 instances, the Section was 
preparing to act as amicus curiae. In 9 instances, the Section 
indicated that the matter was related to research. In 14 FHA 
investigations, the Section was involved in an enforcement role, 
ensuring that a HUD order, decision, or conciliation agreement was 
implemented. In 10 matters, the Section was preparing to take prompt 
judicial action to involve the court in preventing the enforcement of 
or forcing compliance with a decision of the court. 

[74] Time data include all matters initiated and ongoing from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2007. Additionally, the data include time charged by 
all section professional staff, including the section chief, deputies, 
special counsel, attorneys, legal support staff, legal assistants, law 
clerks, and any staff unique to a section. 

[75] We derived information on the reasons why the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section closed matters through interviews with Section 
officials and a review of a nongeneralizable sample of 60 closed matter 
files. However, the Division does not capture data in ICM or other 
Section-level information systems on the reasons why matters were 
closed. Therefore, we could not systematically identify the Section's 
reasons for closing matters, including the number of instances in which 
the Section recommended to proceed with a case and Division management 
did not approve the Section's recommendation. 

[76] GAO, Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and 
Management of the Enforcement Process, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-463] (Washington, D.C., Apr. 21, 
2004), and Fair Housing: HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and 
Investigation Processes Are Consistently Thorough, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-79] (Washington, D.C. Oct. 31, 
2005). 

[77] The Fair Housing Act defines a disability, or handicap, as a 
mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more 
major life activities; a record of such impairment; or being regarded 
as having such an impairment. The term mental or physical impairment 
may include conditions such as blindness, hearing impairment, mobility 
impairment, HIV infection, mental retardation, alcoholism, drug 
addiction (other than current illegal use of a controlled substance), 
chronic fatigue, learning disability, head injury, and mental illness. 

[78] Each matter can involve multiple protected classes; therefore, 
percentages do not total 100. 

[79] The FHA requires that certain multifamily dwellings constructed 
for initial occupancy after March 1991 be accessible for persons with 
disabilities. The FHA accessibility requirements generally include: (1) 
accessible building entrance on an accessible route, (2) accessible and 
usable public and common use areas, (3) usable doors, (4) accessible 
route into and through the covered dwelling unit, and (5) light 
switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental 
controls in accessible locations. 

[80] Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999). 

[81] The Assistant Attorney General began the multifamily housing 
access forum in 2005 to provide information to those who might be 
defendants in cases on how to design and construct facilities so that 
they do not conflict with the law. 

[82] Each year the section provides information to Congress on 
referrals through a document, entitled The Attorney General's Annual 
Report to Congress Pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 
Amendments of 1976. 

[83] Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-200, 89 Stat. 
1124 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801-10). 

[84] 12 C.F.R. pt. 203 (commonly known as Regulation C). 

[85] Housing and Civil Enforcement Section officials also reported that 
the Section had developed three redlining cases since 2004 using Home 
Mortgage Disclosure Act data. Redlining is the refusal of lenders to 
make mortgage loans on an equal basis in certain geographic areas based 
on the racial or ethnic composition of the neighborhood. According to 
Section officials, these are complex cases, requiring significant 
resources. 

[86] According to the Attorney General's 2007 Annual Report to Congress 
Pursuant to ECOA, nine of the bank agency referrals the Section 
continued to investigate at the end of calendar year 2007 involved race 
or national origin discrimination--one of which involved allegations 
that a mortgage company engaged in redlining on the basis of race. 
Additionally, those nine referrals included seven that involved lender 
discrimination on the basis of race in the pricing of mortgage loans. 

[87] According to data maintained in ICM, from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007, the section also participated in 150 lawsuits that were 
filed prior to fiscal years 2001. (Appendix III provides additional 
information on prefiscal year 2001 cases). 

[88] Of the seven cases the Section participated in as amicus, six 
involved FHA and one involved RLUIPA. The case for which the Section 
served as intervenor on behalf of the plaintiffs involved the FHA. 

[89] Of the 277 cases in which the Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section participated, 73 were litigated primarily by a U.S. Attorney's 
Office, 204 primarily by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section. 
When an election case complaint is referred to DOJ, the Section is to 
review the referral to determine whether it should be handled by the 
section, or if it should be handled by the local U.S. Attorney's 
Office. According to Section officials, they usually keep a complaint 
if it seems as though they will be able to add to it a pattern or 
practice claim. If the complaint is novel or involves a difficult legal 
issue, the section might handle it even if it is not a pattern or 
practice case. Another factor considered by the Housing and Civil 
Enforcement Section is the experience of a U.S. Attorney's Office in 
handling housing cases, as some attorneys have more experience than 
others. All election complaints and settlements, including those 
handled by a U.S. Attorney's Office, are to be approved by the 
Assistant Attorney General (AAG). A Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section reviewer is involved in guiding the U.S. Attorney's Office 
through the approval process. 

[90] This includes cases filed either solely under the FHA or in 
combination with RLUIPA, ECOA, or section 504. 

[91] The 31 election cases that the Section filed in fiscal year 2001 
and the 12 such cases filed in fiscal year 2003 include election cases 
with an additional allegation of a pattern or practice of 
discrimination. 

[92] The relatively large number of allegations of disability and 
rental discrimination also appears in the type of complaints received 
by HUD and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies. According 
to HUD's Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report on Fair Housing, the most 
common basis of complaints received by HUD and FHAP agencies was 
disability and the most common allegation was discrimination in the 
terms and conditions of the rental or sale of housing. 

[93] Nineteen (17 FHA and 2 Title II) testing cases were litigated by 
the Section and 1 FHA testing case was litigated by a U.S. Attorney's 
Office. 

[94] Even when an individual test reveals what appears to be unlawful 
discrimination, that alone may not be sufficient to support a lawsuit 
by DOJ. Absent a referral from HUD pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o), 
based upon a complaint and investigation, the Attorney General has 
jurisdiction to commence a lawsuit to enforce the Fair Housing Act in 
federal court only when there is reasonable cause to believe that there 
has been a "pattern or practice" of discrimination or a denial of 
rights to a group of persons that raises a matter of general public 
importance. See 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). The Supreme Court has held that to 
establish a "pattern or practice" of discrimination, the government 
must show "by a preponderance of the evidence that racial 
discrimination was the company's standard operating procedure--the 
regular rather than the unusual practice." Int'l Bhd of Teamsters v. 
United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 (1977). Proof of one instance of 
unlawful discriminatory conduct, standing alone, is often not 
sufficient to prevail in a pattern or practice case. See id. at 336 
n.16. And in the context of fair housing testing, multiple tests may be 
necessary to show a pattern or practice or denial of rights to a group 
of persons. See, e.g., United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 930 
(7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 812 (1993); United States v. 
Garden Homes Mgmt. Corp., 156 F. Supp. 2d 413, 422 (D.N.J. 2001). 

[95] A single test can involve multiple issues and bases of 
discrimination. 

[96] According to Housing and Civil Enforcement Section officials, the 
Section offered contracts to local groups to do the testing, creating 
local scenarios that are more credible and enabling access to hard-to- 
reach areas in the community. Section officials stated that under Home 
Sweet Home they may target a particular area based on need; for 
example, Section officials noted that they had targeted testing efforts 
in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina where displaced persons may be 
looking for housing. 

[97] Four of the 9 complaints included allegations of discrimination 
both on the basis of race and national origin. 

[98] According to Voting Section officials, the Section initiated a 
matter when an inquiry or fact finding involved either travel or more 
than 4 hours of attorney time. Once a matter was open, it received a DJ 
number and remained in the Voting Section as a matter until such time 
as the Section went forward to the Division with a justification 
memorandum recommending the filing a complaint to initiate a lawsuit or 
closed the matter. However, not all the work of the Section becomes a 
matter. 

[99] According to Section officials, the process for opening an 
investigation has changed since the period of our review. In December 
2007, the Division's Front Office implemented an Investigatory 
Memorandum (I-memo) requirement. Under this new procedure, if the 
initial review indicated that the allegation was reasonably likely to 
result in an investigation, it became a matter upon the approval of a 
reviewer with the Section. Before proceeding with an investigation by 
contacting state or local officials, the Section was to prepare a short 
memorandum to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and receive 
authorization from the Division's Front Office. Officials said this 
process was intended to avoid the situation in which the Division 
learned of such an investigation from the media. In August 2009, this 
process changed again. While Section officials are required to receive 
authorization from the Division's Front Office before contacting local 
officials, the reviewing Deputy Assistant Attorney General advised the 
section that a formal I-memo was not necessary and that authorization 
could be obtained by an email outlining the information on which the 
Section based the recommendation to proceed with an investigation. 
Section officials stated that this change was intended to make it 
easier for the section to initiate investigations. However, if an 
allegation is quickly resolved, no DJ number is assigned and the 
allegation does not become a matter. 

[100] The Section engages in election monitoring, which refers to the 
assigning of (1) federal observers by the Office of Personnel 
Management, upon notification of the need by the Attorney General, to 
monitor polling place activities in counties that the Attorney General 
has certified under VRA and counties authorized by federal courts and 
(2) Justice Department attorneys and professional staff to monitor 
election-day activities in local jurisdictions throughout the United 
States, whether or not the locations have been certified under VRA, to 
investigate possible voting rights violations. Election monitoring 
information is not kept in ICM, but in a separate database. Sections 3 
and 8 of the VRA provide authority to the federal courts and the 
Attorney General, respectively, to authorize federal observers to be 
assigned to political jurisdictions to monitor the voting process. 42 
U.S.C. §§ 1973a,1973f. 

[101] An at-large election system is one in which a public official is 
selected from the whole of a political unit or election district rather 
than from a subdivision of the larger unit. 

[102] Matters may be initiated under more than one statute. 

[103] These matters were initiated under sections 2, 4(e), 4(f)(4), 
11(b), 203 and 208 of the VRA. Seven of these matters also involved 
allegations of racial discrimination. 

[104] Coverage under section 203 is determined by a coverage formula 
contained in that section. There are three ways that a jurisdiction may 
be covered: (1) more than 5 percent of the voting age citizens of a 
state or political subdivision are members of a single language 
minority group and are limited-English proficient; (2) more than 10,000 
of the voting age citizens of a political subdivision are members of a 
single language minority group and are limited-English proficient; or 
(3) a political subdivision is covered if there is located within its 
borders all or any part of an Indian reservation, in which more than 5 
percent of the voting age American Indian or Alaska Native citizens are 
members of a single language minority group and are limited-English 
proficient. In all three cases, it is additionally required that the 
illiteracy rate of the language minority citizens is higher than the 
national illiteracy rate. 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a; see also 28 C.F.R. § 
55.6. The requirements of section 203 take effect upon publication in 
the Federal Register of the requisite determinations of the Director of 
the Census. Such determinations are not reviewable in any court. 28 
C.F.R. § 55.4. 

[105] Eighteen of these matters were initiated on behalf of more than 
one language minority group. 

[106] According to Voting Section officials, the reference "203" was 
used in ICM to designate matters initiated pursuant to sections 203 and 
4(f)(4), as well as section 4(e) of the VRA; therefore, we were unable 
to distinguish under which of these provisions a matter was initiated. 
Coverage under section 203 is determined by a coverage formula 
contained in that section that takes into account factors such as the 
percentage of voting age citizens of a state or political subdivision 
who are members of a single language minority group and are limited- 
English proficient, as well as illiteracy rates of such citizens, among 
other factors. 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a; see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.6. The 
coverage determination under section 4(f)(4) is related to the formula 
for determining jurisdictions subject to the preclearance requirements 
of section 5 of the VRA, which are those evidencing discriminatory 
voting practices, based upon a triggering formula as defined in section 
4 of the VRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(4); see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.5. 
During this time, the Section also did not have a separate ICM subject 
value for matters initiated under section 208 on behalf of voters who 
were blind, disabled, or unable to read or write. Section officials 
stated that issues related to Section 208 would ordinarily be added to 
matters initiated under the minority language provisions. 

[107] Two of these matters were also initiated pursuant to an 
allegation of intimidation and 8 were with allegations under section 
203, one of which also involved an NVRA-related allegation. 

[108] Two of these matters were in combination with section 2. 

[109] Seven matters involved both a language minority and a racial 
group. For purposes of describing cases and matters under the VRA, 
cases and matters involving Hispanics are included with the protected 
class of race. 

[110] An at-large election system is one in which a public official is 
selected from the whole of a political unit or election district rather 
than from a subdivision of the larger unit. This type of election can 
dilute the strength of minority voters. For example, when all the of 
the voters within a jurisdiction vote on all members of the city 
council, with the result that racial minorities who live in a 
particular part of the city, and might be able to elect one or more 
representatives if the city council members were individually elected 
from smaller districts, are regularly outvoted by the white majority. 
In analyzing claims that at-large systems violate section 2 by giving 
minorities less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, 
courts engage in an intensive analysis of the effects of the election 
system and of the racial history of the area in question, and have been 
guided by a list of factors identified in the legislative history of 
the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act and articulated by the 
Supreme Court. 

[111] One matter did not identify a particular protected class, but 
referred to voters. 

[112] Section 11(b) of the VRA. 

[113] One matter involved both a language minority and racial minority 
group and one matter involved two racial groups, thus accounting for 25 
of the 27 matters. ICM data did not identify the specific protected 
class of two of these matters. 

[114] One matter involved both provisions of HAVA and the NVRA and 
three matters involved HAVA and the VRA. 

[115] One matter involved both provisions of HAVA and the NVRA and 
three matters involved both the NVRA and the VRA. 

[116] We could not determine the subject for six of these matters 
because the information was not contained in ICM. 

[117] We derived information on the reasons why the Voting Section 
closed matters through interviews with Section officials and a review 
of a nongeneralizable sample of 51 closed matter files. However, the 
Division does not capture data in ICM or other Section-level 
information systems on the reasons why matters were closed. Therefore, 
we could not systematically identify the Section's reasons for closing 
matters, including the number of instances in which the Section 
recommended to proceed with a case and Division management did not 
approve the Section's recommendation. 

[118] Timing may be relevant where, for example, a new census is 
occurring that would allow for the redrawing of districts. For example, 
in one matter, the section received a letter regarding efforts to 
obtain single member districts for a city council, to which the section 
responded it would revisit the issue after census data was released 4 
months later. 

[119] Four cases involving Spanish-speakers involved one or more other 
language minority. 

[120] All five of these cases were filed in conjunction with other 
statutes or other provisions of the VRA. Two of these cases also 
alleged claims of the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on 
account of race, on behalf of Hispanic voters. 

[121] This case was originally filed in 1993, but an amended complaint 
realleging claims under sections 203 and 2, as well as new claims 
pursuant to HAVA and the NVRA, was filed in 2007. 

[122] Six cases were in combination with other statutes and/or in 
combination with other provisions of the VRA, including sections 4(e), 
11(b), 203, and 208 of the VRA, and HAVA and the NVRA. 

[123] As described previously, for purposes describing cases and 
matters under the VRA, cases and matters involving Hispanics are 
included with the protected class of race. 

[124] Two cases involved both race and membership in a language 
minority, as noted above. 

[125] Eight of these cases were filed in conjunction with claims under 
other statues, such as the VRA and the NVRA. 

[126] Four of these cases also included claims under other statutes, 
such as HAVA and the VRA. 

[127] Two cases involved both kinds of claims. 

[128] The Voting Section has an entire system--Submission Tracking and 
Processing System, referred to as STAPS--to track preclearance 
requests, including the origin of the request and the outcome. The 
system is independent of all other Voting Section computer programs and 
databases. When the Section receives a section 5 submission from a 
jurisdiction, the submission is assigned a unique submission number. 
Information that the Voting Section maintains for each submission is: 
state, county or subjurisdiction, as applicable; staff assignments; 
date of submission, Section response due date; pertinent census data; 
list of related submissions (if any); type and description of change; 
state or local act or ordinance number, as applicable; and Section 
action taken and dates of action. All documents related to each 
submission are scanned into a database. Such documents would include 
the submission from the jurisdiction, public comment (if any), internal 
Section analysis and memoranda, memoranda of telephone communications, 
and correspondence to and from the jurisdiction. 

[129] One matter did not specify the type of section 5 matter or a 
specific protected class. 

[130] The 544 matters, initiated from fiscal year 2001 through 2007, 
were closed as of August 8, 2008, the date on which the Division 
provided the data to us. 

[131] Just prior to the start of this period, on September 22, 2000, 
the President signed into law the Religious Land Use and 
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Justice Department 
delegated responsibility for enforcing provisions protecting the rights 
of free exercise of religion for institutionalized persons to the 
Special Litigation Section. However, Section officials said that its 
RLUIPA responsibilities were not new because the Section had previously 
been involved in enforcing similar provisions of the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act of 1993 before the act was declared unconstitutional by 
the Supreme Court. Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993), 
invalidated by City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). 

[132] According to Special Litigation Section officials, the Section 
maintained a phone log and had phone tree duty. For example, they 
estimated that in 2006 that they had received about 700 phone calls. 

[133] A matter was considered a "pre-investigation," and not an 
"investigation," until the Assistant Attorney General approved the 
justification memorandum for an investigation (S10) submitted by the 
Section. 

[134] According to agency officials, matters initiated includes both 
preliminary inquiries (preinvestigations) and "actual investigations." 
Before 2003, preliminary inquiries were opened with minimum standards. 
After 2003, further management controls were introduced so that 
preliminary inquiries were only opened after a staff person spent 2 
hours on the particular matter and the matter was actively supervised. 
Thus, the number of preliminary inquiries declined after 2003; this 
resulted in a corresponding decline in the total number of matters 
initiated. 

[135] Aggregate data on the time spent by the Section on cases and 
matters show that in each fiscal year during the 7-year period the 
Section spent a greater percentage of time on cases than matters. 
However, in fiscal years 2001, 2005, and 2006, the Section reported 
spending a lower percentage of time on matters relative to cases than 
in other fiscal years. Appendix V includes additional information on 
the time the Section reported spending on matters and cases. 

[136] The Section reported the following on-board staff numbers at the 
end of each of the 5 fiscal years: 2003--70, 2004--73, 2005--61, 2006--
57, and 2007--60. According to the Division, in fiscal year 2005, the 
Division was granted Voluntary Early Retirement Authority along with a 
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment of $25,000. Appendix V includes 
additional information on the Sections staff resources from fiscal year 
2001 through 2007. 

[137] The remaining 149 matters were still open at the time of our 
review, and given sensitivity concerns, we did not review certain types 
of information related to these matters. 

[138] Seventeen of the 544 closed matters were identified as other. 
These matters are not included in the overall counts for each area of 
responsibility. For 6 of the 17 matters there was sufficient 
information to be able to categorize them and they are reported in 
footnotes to the appropriate text. 

[139] The Division also provided information on 169 matters that the 
Section initiated prior to fiscal year 2001, but remained open and were 
then closed during the 7-year period. Division officials said, and our 
review of the data confirmed, that these data were not always complete. 
Accordingly, we did not include an analysis of these data in our 
review. 

[140] The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies 
includes one facility type in ICM--law enforcement agency. Therefore, 
numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of law 
enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility 
type law enforcement agency. 

[141] Special Litigation Section officials said that prisons and jails 
do not constitute the universe of its RLUIPA work. We identified one 
additional RLUIPA matter for which the facility was identified as 
other; therefore, we could not determine the facility type. One of the 
18 RLUIPA prison matters also involved CRIPA, but is only counted in 
the RLUIPA total. 

[142] A single adult correctional facility may include both jail and 
prison facilities. 

[143] Under CRIPA, the Attorney General must notify, in writing, the 
appropriate state officials of the intention to commence an 
investigation and, during that time, the Attorney General is required 
to make efforts to consult with the jurisdiction about assistance from 
the United States to correct the unlawful conditions and encourage the 
appropriate officials to take corrective actions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b. 

[144] Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 802, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-66 (1996). 

[145] In addition to other provisions, in particular, the act provides 
that a federal court shall not order prospective relief in a prison 
conditions lawsuit unless the court makes written findings that such 
relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to 
correct the violation of the federal right, and that it is the least 
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation. These requirements 
also apply to consent decrees, but not private settlements. As such, 
federal courts cannot sanction consent decrees in which the parties 
agree to remedies beyond the constitutional minimum. Moreover, in 
support of the consent decree, state officials must agree that the 
relief addresses a violation of a federal right, which means that they 
must admit that there has been a violation. The act was in effect for 
the entire period of our review; however, according to Section 
officials, of four cases that remained open during the review period, 
three were filed with consent decrees before the enactment of the act 
and one was filed after its enactment, together with a memorandum of 
agreement that was not filed in court. (See app. V.) 

[146] The 78 matters involving conditions in prisons under CRIPA do not 
include 1 matter initiated under CRIPA and RLUIPA. This matter is 
included in the RLUIPA matters. 

[147] Section officials provided additional information on the number 
of current matters involving jails and prisons. They reported that as 
of July 2, 2009, the Section had 25 open matters involving jails and 3 
involving prisons--2 of which where being investigated and one was 
settled with a memorandum of agreement. 

[148] According to Section officials, group foster homes usually have 8 
beds or less and, therefore, it is usually not fiscally justified for 
the Special Litigation Section to investigate a group foster home 
unless the situation is very bad. 

[149] These matters involved the integration mandate provision under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, also known as the Olmstead 
Initiative, after the Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 
581 (1999), which held that individuals with mental disabilities are 
required to be moved out of unnecessary institutionalization into 
community-based living arrangements, where appropriate. Executive Order 
13217 required the Attorney General, among other agency heads, to 
ensure that the Olmstead decision was implemented in a timely manner. 

[150] The Section reported in ICM that the case was dismissed from 
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),which allows 
a complaint to be dismissed by the court at the plaintiff's request. 

[151] As part of the Section's focus on juveniles, the Section 
initiated and closed an additional 5 matters involving access to 
counsel in juvenile court (identified under other), under its 14141 
authority. 

[152] In a letter to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties, Committee on the Judiciary, dated July 30, 
2007, DOJ reported having successfully resolved 14 pattern or practice 
police misconduct investigations involving 11 police departments from 
2001 to 2006. According to the Special Litigation Section, 9 of these 
investigations were initiated or opened prior to 2001. 

[153] We derived information on the reasons why the Special Litigation 
Section closed matters through interviews with Section officials and a 
review of a nongeneralizable sample of 51 closed matter files. However, 
the Division does not capture data in ICM or other Section-level 
information systems on the reasons why matters were closed. Therefore, 
we could not systematically identify the Section's reasons for closing 
matters, including the number of instances in which the Section 
recommended to proceed with a case and Division management did not 
approve the Section's recommendation. 

[154] The 21 states were Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, 
Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, 
Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming. 

[155] See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 

[156] In one case in which a settlement was reached, the case had been 
previously dismissed by the court at the request of the section, 
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 

[157] The aggregate time data included time reported spent for all 
matters on which the Special Litigation Section staff worked from 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007, including matters initiated during the 
7-year period and matters initiated prior to fiscal year 2001 that were 
still open during the 7-year period. (Appendix V includes additional 
information on these matters.) 

[158] The aggregate time data included time reported spent for cases on 
which the Special Litigation Section staff worked from fiscal year 2001 
through fiscal year 2007, including cases in which the Section filed 
complaints during the period, cases in which the Section was a 
defendant or defendant intervener, and cases that remained open during 
the 7-year period. (Appendix V includes additional information on these 
cases.) 

[159] A case is defined as an activity that has been assigned an 
identification number that has resulted in the filing of a complaint, 
indictment, or information in court. A matter is defined as an activity 
that has been assigned an identification number, but has not resulted 
in the filing of a complaint, indictment, or information in court--for 
example, the investigation of a complaint or an allegation of 
discrimination referred by another federal agency. The complaint 
outlines the facts and legal claims for relief from damages caused, or 
wrongful conduct engaged in, by the defendant. An indictment or 
information is the formal charge made by a prosecutor to initiate a 
criminal proceeding against the accused. 

[160] We obtained the spreadsheets, by section, from December 2007 
through March 2008. 

[161] According to the Division, case management data kept prior to 
2001 were tracked in a number of other auxiliary systems and field 
formats did not conform to the current ICM database structure. 

[162] A nongeneralizable sample may be either a nonprobability sample 
where observations are selected in a manner that is not completely 
random, or a probability sample where random sampling is used, but the 
sample size is too small to allow the results to be generalized to the 
broader population. 

[163] GAO, Civil Rights Division: Selection of Cases and Reasons 
Matters were Closed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-192] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
27, 2000). 

[164] The Division does not capture data in ICM or other Section-level 
information systems on the reasons why matters were closed. Therefore, 
we could not systematically identify the Sections' reasons for closing 
matters, including the number of instances in which the Sections 
recommended to proceed with a case and Division management did not 
approve the Sections' recommendation. 

[165] While ICM includes fields for collecting these data, the Division 
has not required sections to do this because, according to Division 
officials, when planning for ICM's implementation with section 
officials, the Division did not consider requiring sections to provide 
these data. 

[166] One of the cases the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed 
was as plaintiff intervenor against multiple defendants. When the 
Section entered into a consent decree with some of the defendants, it 
created an additional Department of Justice (DJ) number so it could 
track both the settlement and the remaining ongoing litigation; 
however, the Section treats this as one case, as there was one 
complaint. 

[167] Nineteen (17 FHA and 2 Title II) testing cases were filed by the 
Section and 1 FHA testing case was litigated by a U.S. Attorney's 
Office. 

[168] We reviewed two reports that the Division was required to submit 
to Congress, including a report on DOJ's activities under the Civil 
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, which DOJ submits annually to 
Congress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997f, for each year 2001 through 
2007, and DOJ's annual report to Congress on the administration of its 
functions under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
§ 1691f. 

[169] We met with the individuals serving in the position of Acting 
Assistant Attorney General for the Division in August 2008 and March 
2009. 

[170] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 

[171] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. 

[172] The section is required under Title VII to notify the charging 
party of their right to file a private lawsuit. 

[173] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. 

[174] 38 U.S.C. § 4301-35. 

[175] Employers are liable for employment practices that are 
intentionally discriminatory, as well as those that have the effect of 
being discriminatory, for instance, a physical fitness test that 
eliminates more female than male candidates. 

[176] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that "[n]o person 
in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national 
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 
or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity 
receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Title VI 
requires each federal grant agency to implement this principle of 
nondiscrimination "by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general 
applicability." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. 

[177] There was 1 section 707 plaintiff case for which the Section did 
not monitor compliance because the Section did not obtain a favorable 
outcome in that case. 

[178] The time data include time Section staff spent working on cases 
that were filed in court prior to fiscal year 2001, but were still 
ongoing (e.g., monitoring compliance with consent orders) at some point 
during fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

[179] Nearly 50 percent of the total time charged to other activities 
was charged to administrative matters during the period of our review. 
According to Section officials, the Section Chief, all six Deputy 
Chiefs, program analysts, and administrative staff all charge time to 
administrative matters, including time spent reviewing EEOC charge 
referrals and other information related to matters and cases. 

[180] In Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), the 
Supreme Court ruled that federal affirmative action programs to benefit 
minorities must meet the same "strict scrutiny" standard that applies 
to state and local programs. To survive strict scrutiny, federal 
programs must serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly 
tailored to meet that interest. Previously, the court had subjected 
congressionally mandated affirmative action to a lesser standard of 
review in light of Congress's broad authority to enforce equal 
protection guarantees. 

[181] Table 1 on page 11 of this report provides information on 
available permanent positions and salaries and expenses for the 
Employment Litigation Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

[182] 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et. seq. 

[183] 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. 

[184] Pub. L. No. 90-321, 82 Stat. 146 (1968) (codified as amended in 
scattered sections of 15 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C.). 

[185] 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to a-6. 

[186] 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 

[187] 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501-96. 

[188] A bill is pending in Congress that would give the Attorney 
General explicit authority to bring actions under the SCRA. See 
Servicemembers' Rights Protection Act, H.R. 2696, 111th Cong. (2009). 

[189] The Section was assigned responsibility for the SCRA in 2006 and, 
according to Section officials, it took some time before the Section 
began receiving allegations of violations. Officials reported that they 
were able to resolve several SCRA matters without filing complaints by 
obtaining repayment for servicemembers from potential defendants. 
Officials reported that their first case involving the SCRA was filed 
in December 2008 and, as such, is outside the time period of our 
review; they also noted that they expect data from fiscal year 2009 to 
show an increase in matters and cases under the SCRA. 

[190] One of these matters also involved Title VI. 

[191] 29 U.S.C. § 794. 

[192] One of these matters also involved section 504. 

[193] 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. 

[194] 42 U.S.C. § 3631. 

[195] Of the 1,070 closed matters, 211 were initiated prior to fiscal 
year 2001 and the remaining 859 were initiated from fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. 

[196] Five cases involved both ECOA and the FHA. 

[197] The subject matter of two cases was not identified in ICM data. 

[198] Sixteen cases involved both pattern or practice and election. 

[199] Two enforcement cases were also pattern or practice cases. 

[200] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1. 

[201] 42 U.S.C. § 1973. 

[202] 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a. 

[203] 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(4). 

[204] The coverage determination under section 4(f)(4) is related to 
the formula for determining coverage for the preclearance requirements 
of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Coverage under section 203 is 
determined by a coverage formula contained in that section that takes 
into account factors such as the percentage of voting age citizens of a 
state or political subdivision who are members of a single language 
minority group and are limited-English proficient, as well as 
illiteracy rates of such citizens, among other factors. Section 203(b); 
see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.6. 

[205] 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(e). 

[206] 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. 

[207] The jurisdictions targeted for "coverage" are those evidencing 
discriminatory voting practices, based upon a triggering formula, as 
defined in section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b. The 
Attorney General and the Director of the Census have responsibility for 
determining which jurisdictions are covered by the triggering formula, 
and their determinations are not reviewable in any court and are 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Id. 

[208] 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-6. 

[209] 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b). 

[210] 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-545. 

[211] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff - 1973ff-6. 

[212] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg - 1973gg-10. 

[213] Except for those states that have no registration requirements or 
that permit election-day registration with respect to federal 
elections. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2. 

[214] The first matter was on behalf of Native Americans and involved a 
possible violation of section 2 of the VRA based on a county's use of 
an at-large election system; the second matter involved a state's 
potential violation of UOCAVA; and the third matter was on behalf of 
African Americans and concerned a possible violation of section 11(b) 
of the VRA (intimidation) by state officials in the course of a voter 
fraud investigation. 

[215] Three of these cases were related. 

[216] According to data maintained by the Voting Section, there were an 
additional three cases in which the Section participated as defendant. 
Section officials reported that in one instance, a VRA case naming the 
United States as a defendant was closed after the court dismissed it 
for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute it. The United States was not 
served with the complaint and did not file any pleadings in the case. 
With respect to the second two cases, pro se plaintiffs had asserted 
challenges to HAVA and UOCAVA, but the Voting Section did not handle 
the cases. Division officials made the determination for the Civil 
Division and relevant U.S. Attorney's Office to participate in the 
case. While the Section reviewed relevant documents, the officials 
reported that the amount of time spent was minimal. 

[217] A "declaratory judgment" declares the rights of the parties or 
expresses the opinion of the court on a question of law without 
ordering anything to be done. 

[218] Redistricting and reapportionment are often used interchangeably 
to refer to the division or drawing of districts within a state; 
however, under the Constitution, apportionment is the division of 
congressional districts among the states according to population. 

[219] In addition to the cases mentioned, the cases filed pro se 
included two cases involving the preclearance provisions of section 5 
of the VRA, as discussed above, three related cases involving claims 
arising out of HAVA, and one case involving plaintiffs' attempts to 
obtain party status for the Non-Affiliated Voters Party. 

[220] According to data maintained by the Voting Section, there were an 
additional six cases in which the Section participated as amicus. 
However, upon further review, Section officials reported that the 
Section did not file an amicus brief in any of the six cases. 
Specifically, in three cases, the Section appeared in court, but did 
not file any documents; in two cases, briefs were filed by the 
Division, not the Section, but appear in ICM because the Section may 
have reviewed the matter initially or assigned staff to analyze and/or 
monitor it; and, in one case, the Section sent a letter to the court of 
its willingness to participate if the court desired, but was never 
asked to participate. 

[221] Section officials noted that many of the cases that the ICM data 
reported as being open during the time period were not active, so data 
reported may overrepresent the number of cases for which the Voting 
Section had ongoing responsibilities during the time period. 

[222] One case involved both sections 2 and 5 of the VRA. 

[223] One of these cases was in combination with section 5 of the VRA. 

[224] According to Voting Section officials, the reference "203" was 
used in ICM to designate cases and matters under sections 203 and 
4(f)(4), as well as section 4(e) of the VRA; therefore, we were unable 
to distinguish under which of these provisions a case was filed. 
Coverage under section 203 is determined by a coverage formula 
contained in that section that takes into account factors such as the 
percentage of voting age citizens of a state or political subdivision 
who are members of a single language minority group and are limited-
English proficient, as well as illiteracy rates of such citizens, among 
other factors. 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a; see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.6. The 
coverage determination under section 4(f)(4) is related to the formula 
for determining jurisdictions subject to the preclearance requirements 
of section 5 of the VRA, which are those evidencing discriminatory 
voting practices, based upon a triggering formula as defined in section 
4 of the VRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(4); see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.5. 
During this time, the Section also did not have a separate ICM subject 
value for matters initiated under Section 208 on behalf of voters who 
were blind, disabled, or unable to read or write. Section officials 
stated that issues related to Section 208 would ordinarily be added to 
matters initiated under the minority language provisions. 

[225] The remaining 3 percent was spent on other roles including 
amicus, investigator, plaintiff intervener, or defendant intervener. 

[226] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j. 

[227] With respect to prisons, jails, and correctional facilities, 
under CRIPA, the Section is authorized to seek relief for 
constitutional violations only. 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a). 

[228] 42 U.S.C. § 14141. 

[229] 42 U.S.C. § 2000b. 

[230] 42 U.S.C. § 3789d. 

[231] 18 U.S.C. § 248. 

[232] 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. 

[233] Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993), invalidated by City 
of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). 

[234] The more than 700 closed matters included matters initiated or 
open as of October 1, 2000, and closed as of August 8, 2008. 

[235] According to Special Litigation Section officials, since 2003 the 
Section's closed matter files are to include a closure memo for all 
closed pre-investigations and investigations. Prior to 2003, closure 
memorandums were cursory forms. Our review of a random selection of 
matter files closed between 2001 and 2007, while limited, suggested 
that this policy was being implemented. We found closing memorandums or 
explanations of why matters were closed in 12 of the 14 files reviewed 
for matters initiated from fiscal years 2004 through 2007. 

[236] An additional case identified in ICM indicated that the Section's 
role was investigator. According to Section officials, the Section's 
role was investigator because the defendant in the case was under a 
permanent injunction and if the defendant violated the injunction, the 
Special Litigation Section would return to court as it had done in the 
past. The case involved FACE and access to a reproductive health 
clinic. 

[237] These data included cases on which the Special Litigation Section 
staff worked from fiscal years 2001 through fiscal year 2007, including 
cases in which the Section filed complaints during the period, cases in 
which the Section was a defendant or defendant intervener, and cases 
that remained open during the 7-year period. 

[238] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, An 
Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper 
Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division. (Washington, D.C.: July 
2, 2008), released publicly January 13, 2009. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: