|
A Nation Divided:
The Consequences of Bilingual Ballots Five Reasons Why Congress Should Not Renew the Bilingual Voting Provisions 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 expanded the Act's scope to add bilingual voting assistance. This provision, set forth under Secs. 203(c) and 4(f)(4), requires 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 bilingual voting assistance provision in 1982 and again in 1992. It is scheduled to expire in August 2007. 1) There is No Justification for Bilingual Ballots & Election Materials 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 in federal elections. This is entirely appropriate for a nation whose constitution and founding documents are written entirely in the English language. Therefore forcing state and local governments to print foreign-language ballots for citizens who are already required to read and understand English is both redundant and wasteful. 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 debase the meaning of citizenship, encourage illegal voting, and undermine the integrity of the naturalization process by eliminating an incentive for immigrants to learn English. 2) Bilingual Ballot Requirements are Arbitrary and Wasteful Jurisdictions such as counties are required to provide multilingual election
materials under Sections 203(c) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act if: The 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 by 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) Bilingual Ballots are an Un-funded 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 Office of Management and Budget 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) Bilingual Ballots 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 2003, a garbled Spanish ballot translation in Stockton, California resulted in confusion at the ballot box. (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 and thereby increase the risk of election fraud, voter intimidation, and voter manipulation. In the last three years the Justice Department has investigated at least 185 cases of election fraud. 5) Bilingual Ballots 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 in 30 states across the country are required to provide multilingual election materials, up from 248 covered jurisdictions in 29 states in 1992. (7) 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. (8) 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. (9) ENDNOTES: For more information, read: Bilingual Ballot Provisions of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965: An Overview An article, (external link) published in the Weekly Standard, by Edward Blum, detailing the abuses of Justice-Department enforcement of bilinguak ballot laws: "Se Habla Lawsuit".
|
||
|
|||
|
|
       
|