ProEnglish backgrounders

Five Reasons Why Congress SHOULD NOT Renew the Multilingual Voting Requirements of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to eliminate barriers to voter registration that had been used to prevent black citizens from registering and voting. But in 1975, Congress amended the Act to mandate multilingual voting assistance. Set forth under Secs. 203(c) and 4(f)(4), these provisions require covered jurisdictions to provide multilingual election materials for specified language minorities. These include American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Americans of “Spanish Heritage.” Although originally intended to be a temporary measure, Congress renewed the multilingual voting assistance provisions in 1982 and again in 1992. They are scheduled to expire in 2007.

1) There is No Justification for Multilingual Elections
The United States is an English-speaking country in which almost all citizens speak, read, and understand the English language. Since 1907 the United States has required immigrants to learn English in order to naturalize and acquire the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. This is entirely appropriate for a nation whose constitution and founding documents are written entirely in the English language. The only logical rationale for the mandatory provision of ballots and voting materials in other languages is to facilitate and encourage voting by non-citizens – a violation of federal law. Thus bilingual ballots dilute the meaning of citizenship, encourage illegal voting, and undermine the integrity of the naturalization process by eliminating an important incentive for immigrants to learn English.

2) Multilingual Election Requirements are Arbitrary and Wasteful
Political jurisdictions such as states and counties are required to provide multilingual election materials under Section 203(c) of the Voting Rights Act if:

This formula means that every municipality within a covered jurisdiction must provide multilingual election materials – even if everyone there speaks English.

In 2004, the Justice Department forced Briny Breezes, Florida to print notices for a local election in Spanish, because the town is located in a county covered under Section 203.

The Justice Department did this despite the fact that Census data showed that 98 percent of the town’s residents are life-long U.S. citizens and 99 percent speak English “very well.”[1]

3) Multilingual Elections are an Unfunded Spending Mandate on Local Governments
Congress has never appropriated funding to help local governments comply with the ’75 bilingual ballot assistance amendment to the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the bilingual assistance provisions of the Act constitute an “unfunded mandate,” according to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995.

A growing number of localities are being forced to spend significant portions of their election budgets to comply with Sec. 203. The GAO reported that Los Angeles County taxpayers spent over $1.1 million in 1996 to provide multilingual voting assistance in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Filipino.[2] In 2002, the County’s multilingual election costs more than doubled to $3.3 million.[3] In San Juan County, Utah, the cost of providing multilingual election materials during the ’96 election cycle swelled to 64 percent of the County’s total election cost.[4] It would be far more efficient to let the tiny number of U.S. citizens who require language assistance bring someone into the ballot booth to assist them.

4) Multilingual Elections Increase the Likelihood of Errors and Vote Fraud
It is self-evident that multilingual ballots and elections undermine the integrity of the elections process by increasing the likelihood of election errors and fraud. In 2005, the Orange County Registrar of Voters Office mailed out 7,570 Korean-language sample ballots that omitted and duplicated information and had factual errors.[5] On a 1993 N.Y. ballot question, translators listed the Chinese character for “no,” when it should have said “yes”.[6] Language assistance settlements imposed on covered localities by the Justice Department routinely require the hiring of bilingual election workers, increasing the risk of election fraud and voter manipulation. In the last three years, the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted over 200 investigations, prosecuted more than 90 individuals, and secured more than 50 convictions for election fraud.[7]

5) Multilingual Elections are a Growing Burden
The number of states and counties required to provide multilingual election materials under Sec. 203(c) and 4(f)(4) is growing. Today, 296 counties and municipalities in 30 states across the country are required to provide multilingual election materials, up from 248 covered jurisdictions in 28 states in 1992.[8] In 1980, there were covered jurisdictions in only 21 states. In Bingham Co., Idaho, election officials spent over four times as much to provide bilingual assistance in 1996 as they did in ’92.[9] The Justice Department has filed more bilingual ballot lawsuits in the last four years the than it did in the previous 26-year history of the Act.[10]

1. John McCaslin, “Inside the Beltway,” Washington Times, February 25, 2004.

2. United States, General Accounting Office (GAO),“Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs” (Washington: GPO, 1997).

3. Deborah Kong, “30 States Have Multilingual Ballots,” Associated Press, September 25, 2002.

4. United States, General Accounting Office (GAO), “Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs” (Washington: GPO, 1997).

5. Ellyn Pak, Norberto Santana Jr., and Jim Radcliff, “O.C. mails corrected Korean sample ballots,” The Orange County Register, Oct. 29, 2005.

6. Ashley Dunn, “Bilingual Ballot Law Fails to Help Chinese-American Voters,” New York Times, Aug. 14, 1994.

7. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Symposium, Oct. 4, 2005.

8. Deborah Kong, “30 States Have Multilingual Ballots,” Associated Press, September 25, 2002.

9. United States, General Accounting Office (GAO), “Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs” (Washington: GPO, 1997).

10. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Aug. 2, 2005.


Action Urge Congress to defend English Model official English statute Donate Current Legislation State Profiles Issues Official English Bilingual Education English on the Job Citizenship and Immigration Bilingual Ballots Puerto Rican Statehood Ending E.O. 13166, the "Multilingual Mandate" Contact us: 1601 N. Kent St. Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209 ph: (703) 816-8821		A Nation Divided: The Consequences of Multilingual Elections Five Reasons Why Congress SHOULD NOT Renew the Multilingual Voting Requirements of the Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to eliminate barriers to voter registration that had been used to prevent black citizens from registering and voting. But in 1975, Congress amended the Act to mandate multilingual voting assistance. Set forth under Secs. 203(c) and 4(f)(4), these provisions require covered jurisdictions to provide multilingual election materials for specified language minorities. These include American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Americans of “Spanish Heritage.” Although originally intended to be a temporary measure, Congress renewed the multilingual voting assistance provisions in 1982 and again in 1992. They are scheduled to expire in 2007. 1) There is No Justification for Multilingual Elections The United States is an English-speaking country in which almost all citizens speak, read, and understand the English language. Since 1907 the United States has required immigrants to learn English in order to naturalize and acquire the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. This is entirely appropriate for a nation whose constitution and founding documents are written entirely in the English language. The only logical rationale for the mandatory provision of ballots and voting materials in other languages is to facilitate and encourage voting by non-citizens – a violation of federal law. Thus bilingual ballots dilute the meaning of citizenship, encourage illegal voting, and undermine the integrity of the naturalization process by eliminating an important incentive for immigrants to learn English. 2) Multilingual Election Requirements are Arbitrary and Wasteful Political jurisdictions such as states and counties are required to provide multilingual election materials under Section 203(c) of the Voting Rights Act if: More than 5 percent of the jurisdiction’s voting age citizens are limited English proficient members of one of the designated “minority language” groups; or More than 10,000 of the jurisdiction’s voting age citizens are limited English proficient members of the designated “minority language” group; and The illiteracy rate of such language minority group citizens is higher than the national illiteracy rate This formula means that every municipality within a covered jurisdiction must provide multilingual election materials – even if everyone there speaks English. In 2004, the Justice Department forced Briny Breezes, Florida to print notices for a local election in Spanish, because the town is located in a county covered under Section 203. The Justice Department did this despite the fact that Census data showed that 98 percent of the town’s residents are life-long U.S. citizens and 99 percent speak English “very well.”[1] 3) Multilingual Elections are an Unfunded Spending Mandate on Local Governments Congress has never appropriated funding to help local governments comply with the ’75 bilingual ballot assistance amendment to the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the bilingual assistance provisions of the Act constitute an “unfunded mandate,” according to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995. A growing number of localities are being forced to spend significant portions of their election budgets to comply with Sec. 203. The GAO reported that Los Angeles County taxpayers spent over $1.1 million in 1996 to provide multilingual voting assistance in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Filipino.[2] In 2002, the County’s multilingual election costs more than doubled to $3.3 million.[3] In San Juan County, Utah, the cost of providing multilingual election materials during the ’96 election cycle swelled to 64 percent of the County’s total election cost.[4] It would be far more efficient to let the tiny number of U.S. citizens who require language assistance bring someone into the ballot booth to assist them. 4) Multilingual Elections Increase the Likelihood of Errors and Vote Fraud It is self-evident that multilingual ballots and elections undermine the integrity of the elections process by increasing the likelihood of election errors and fraud. In 2005, the Orange County Registrar of Voters Office mailed out 7,570 Korean-language sample ballots that omitted and duplicated information and had factual errors.[5] On a 1993 N.Y. ballot question, translators listed the Chinese character for “no,” when it should have said “yes”.[6] Language assistance settlements imposed on covered localities by the Justice Department routinely require the hiring of bilingual election workers, increasing the risk of election fraud and voter manipulation. In the last three years, the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted over 200 investigations, prosecuted more than 90 individuals, and secured more than 50 convictions for election fraud.[7] 5) Multilingual Elections are a Growing Burden The number of states and counties required to provide multilingual election materials under Sec. 203(c) and 4(f)(4) is growing. Today, 296 counties and municipalities in 30 states across the country are required to provide multilingual election materials, up from 248 covered jurisdictions in 28 states in 1992.[8] In 1980, there were covered jurisdictions in only 21 states. In Bingham Co., Idaho, election officials spent over four times as much to provide bilingual assistance in 1996 as they did in ’92.[9] The Justice Department has filed more bilingual ballot lawsuits in the last four years the than it did in the previous 26-year history of the Act.[10] 1. John McCaslin, “Inside the Beltway,” Washington Times, February 25, 2004. 2. United States, General Accounting Office (GAO),“Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs” (Washington: GPO, 1997). 3. Deborah Kong, “30 States Have Multilingual Ballots,” Associated Press, September 25, 2002. 4. United States, General Accounting Office (GAO), “Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs” (Washington: GPO, 1997). 5. Ellyn Pak, Norberto Santana Jr., and Jim Radcliff, “O.C. mails corrected Korean sample ballots,” The Orange County Register, Oct. 29, 2005. 6. Ashley Dunn, “Bilingual Ballot Law Fails to Help Chinese-American Voters,” New York Times, Aug. 14, 1994. 7. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Symposium, Oct. 4, 2005. 8. Deborah Kong, “30 States Have Multilingual Ballots,” Associated Press, September 25, 2002. 9. United States, General Accounting Office (GAO), “Bilingual Voting Assistance: Assistance Provided and Costs” (Washington: GPO, 1997). 10. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Aug. 2, 2005.

The Consequences of Multilingual Elections