|
ORAL TESTIMONY OF
K.C. McALPIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PROENGLISH FOR THE This statement is to convey ProEnglish's concerns regarding extension of Sections 4(f)(4) and 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as Amended. "Cultural and religious diversity does not pose
a threat to the national interest as long as public policies insure civic
unity. Such policies should help people learn to speak, read, and write
English effectively." Chairman Chabot and distinguished members of the Committee: thank you for the opportunity to present our views on renewing the bilingual ballot provisions of the Voting Rights Act. ProEnglish is a national organization whose mission is to defend English as the common language of our country and to make it the official language at all levels of government. Mr. Chairman I want to thank you for your leadership in the struggle to make English our official language - a position endorsed by 79 percent of voters and 81 percent of naturalized citizens according to the most recent poll. Bilingual ballots are a costly, un-funded mandate that function like a tax on English speaking Americans. Two separate General Accounting Office reports to Congress found solid evidence that in most jurisdictions covered by Sections 203 and 4(F)(4), bilingual ballots are hardly used. And where they are used, their use scarcely justifies the cost and effort needed to provide them. In my written testimony, which I ask that you include in the official committee record, I give a number of reasons why we think the bilingual ballot provisions of the Voting Rights Act should not be reauthorized. But in the time I have I want to focus on four. First, the rationale for providing bilingual ballots is no longer valid. The reasons that persuaded Congress to add the bilingual ballot provisions to the Voting Rights Act ten years after it was enacted had nothing to do with voting rights discrimination. Rather, supporters told Congress that certain language minority groups had not had access to equal educational opportunities in this country. Those were Alaskan natives, American Indians, and American citizens of Asian or Hispanic descent. Backers said this lack of opportunity had caused these groups' literacy rate to be below the national average, and argued that they needed help while the educational system caught up. This is why Congress intended bilingual ballots to be a temporary, remedial measure. Thirty years later the driving factor behind the literacy rate of the two largest of these groups - Asians and Hispanics - has little to do with educational opportunities in this country. I want to make a distinction here between these two groups and American Indians and Alaskan natives, which I discuss in my written testimony. In 1975 the vast majority of our Hispanic and Asian citizens were natives. Today the situation has changed. Immigrants are now by far the biggest component in these groups, and the dominant factor affecting their English literacy rates. Recent studies suggest the main reason for the elevated school drop out rates among these groups is the lack of educational opportunities they experienced in their native countries before immigrating. It is wrong to impose extraordinary ballot costs on American taxpayers because of the voluntary decisions of millions of people to move here. And we see no justification for continuing a remedy whose reason for being is completely out of date. Second, bilingual ballots should not be necessary. For almost 100 years immigrants have been required to know English in order to naturalize. This is appropriate for a country whose constitution and founding documents were written in English, whose three branches of government operate almost completely in English, and whose political life is conducted almost entirely in the English language. So why are we forcing states and counties to provide bilingual ballots
for naturalized citizens who should be able to read and understand English?
If people are circumventing the law and naturalizing without learning
English, then it is their responsibility to deal with the consequences
- not the responsibility of the American people. Third, bilingual ballots and poll workers also increase the risk of election fraud. There is no doubt that language is an effective way to conceal illegal activity. From the departments of motor vehicles in various states, to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, interpreters have been caught using language as a cover to break the law, and even commit espionage. Bilingual voter outreach materials, voter registration forms, absentee
ballots and the like all increase the risk that non-citizens will register
and vote -- either accidentally or in deliberate violation of the law.
In recent years there have been a growing number of cases in which non-citizens
have been caught illegally registering and voting. Removing incentives to learn English does not help insure our civic unity. Instead such policies discourage assimilation and encourage the formation of linguistically isolated immigrant communities that are outside the mainstream of American life. The violence that has broken out in immigrant neighborhoods across France should be a wake-up call about the danger to a society when assimilation breaks down. Now, for the record I want to say emphatically that my organization supports the right of all citizens to vote. But the relatively few citizens who cannot understand English have the same remedies to help them vote that millions of English-speaking illiterates have. They can request an absentee ballot and get help to understand it. They can take a crib sheet or a pre-marked paper ballot with them when they vote. And they have the right to take an interpreter into the poll with them. [The law states (quote) "Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice," (end quote) (42 USC, Section 1973 aa-6, as added in 1982).] These are remedies available to non-English speaking voters regardless of whether they live in a covered jurisdiction, and regardless of whether or not they happen to be members of one of the covered groups. They are more than adequate to protect the right of qualified voters who have difficulty reading and understanding English, to cast a ballot. Finally, I want to say that requiring citizens to vote using ballots in English discriminates against no one on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. No matter how you try, you cannot equate these terms with the language someone speaks. English is spoken as a first language by people of every race, of every ethnicity, and by dozens of national origins. English is the official language in 51 different nations, most of which are located in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. And there are countless examples of racial or ethnic groups, as well as nations, that speak many different languages. Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present our views. (Please see written testimony for more details, in .Html
or .PDF formats.)
|
||
 |
|||
|
|
       
|