|
DC Testimony on Multilingual Ballots
Supervisor Norby’s Testimony before the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, May 4, 2006
Rayburn House Office Building , Washington , D.C.
The multilingual ballot sections of the Voting Rights Act perpetuate negative stereotypes, are outdated, vague and violate the spirit of assimilation that holds our country together.
Naturalized voters pass a citizenship test in English. Immigrants study for months and take special classes to prepare for this test. Should the law presume they are incapable of voting in English?
According to the current interpretation of the VRA, my County of Orange must provide translations in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean.
The publication of non-English language voting materials cost our county taxpayers $596,919 for our 2004 and 2005 elections. Yet, out of 1.5 million Orange County voters, only 0.7% (seven tenths of one percent) requested non-English language ballots in our most recent countywide election.
Multilingualism perpetuates the false stereotype that immigrants are not learning English, either by lack of desire or ability. Today's naturalized citizens have higher education and income levels than in past generations.
Complex ballot propositions are difficult enough to explain in English, let alone other languages. Chinese uses over 20,000 characters, with a simplified system (on the mainland) and a traditional system (in Taiwan and Hong Kong) that are distinctly different. Not surprisingly, most Chinese-American voters in Orange County are well-educated professionals who vote overwhelmingly in English.
The original Voting Rights Act of 1965 empowered African-Americans to vote, which they had long been denied in the Jim Crow-era South. The law ended blatant race-based political discrimination. It had nothing to do with multilingual voting. It was only in subsequent renewals of the Voting Rights Act that multilingual ballot requirements crept in, and those rules have become onerous.
The method for determining which voters are non-English speaking is highly suspect. Census forms ask us whether we speak English "Very Well, Well, Not Well or Not at All." Only those checking "Very Well" are judged capable of voting in English. Speaking English "Well" should be good enough. It was obviously good enough to pass the citizenship test. In addition, all immigrants who have not finished the fifth grade are presumed illiterate. When more than 5 percent or 10,000 people of the voting-age population in a county meet both these criteria, the non-English-ballot requirements take effect.
If these standards are left unchanged, after the 2010 census my county could be required to print ballots in Tagalog, Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu, and Farsi, depending on future immigration patterns.
Such confusing rules allow DOJ agents to push us far beyond what the law actually requires. Last year, we were required to send 118,856 "outreach" letters offering voters foreign-language ballots. We received hundreds of angry responses back from voters who were insulted at the suggestion they couldn't speak English.
DOJ agents have suggested that OC voter pamphlets may be required to contain all five languages, even those sent to native English speakers. This would cost us over $20 million per election, incite anti-immigrant feelings and give the voter pamphlet the bulk of a phone book.
DOJ agents have given our Registrar a list of Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese surnames. Based on surnames alone, we are to assume that 25% of voters with these names are limited English-speaking.
Most of our voters with Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese surnames were born in this country, while others took these names upon marriage. The rest all took the citizenship test in English. It is insulting to stereotype people’s language ability based on their names!
The multilingual requirements are now creeping into court decisions. A recent recall election in Santa Ana was placed in doubt by the Ninth Circuit Court because the petitions were written only in English. Similar petitions are being challenged all over the state, limiting citizens’ right to petition for recall and state and local initiative elections. Yet, the Voting Rights Act has no mandate whatsoever for multilingual petitions.
I urge a total reexamination of the need for multilingual ballots. If they are kept, five simple clarifications that would greatly improve the Voting Rights Act and these have been submitted in writing for your consideration:
- Accept the naturalized voters’ self-description of their own English ability. Speaking English “well” or “very well” should both be considered adequate.
- Non-English voting material should only be provided to those who request them.
- Delete the numerical threshold of 10,000 and raise the 5% threshold to 10%.
- English fluency assumptions must never be based on a voter’s surname.
- Any multilingual ballot provisions do not apply to petitions.
Let the values of the Voting Rights Act reflect that of civic assimilation, not static schisms. Let voting be a tool for unity, not division. |
