[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203--
BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS
(PART II)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 9 AND NOVEMBER 10, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-505 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JERROLD NADLER, New York
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel
E. Stewart Jeffries, Counsel
Hilary Funk, Counsel
Kimberly Betz, Full Committee Counsel
David Lachmann, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
NOVEMBER 9, 2005
WITNESSES
Page
Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Executive Director, National Congress of
American Indians
Oral Testimony................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Mr. K.C. McAlpin, Executive Director, ProEnglish
Oral Testimony................................................. 63
Prepared Statement............................................. 67
Mr. James Thomas Tucker, Attorney, Ogletree Deakins, P.C.,
Adjunct Professor, Barrett Honors College at Arizona State
University, Phoenix, Arizona
Oral Testimony................................................. 76
Prepared Statement............................................. 78
Mr. Juan Cartagena, General Counsel, Community Service Society
Oral Testimony................................................. 134
Prepared Statement............................................. 137
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve Chabot, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution..................... 177
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution....................... 177
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 179
Inserted into the Record by Mr. Chabot on November 18, 2005:
Prepared Statement of Chris Norby, Supervisor, Fourth
District, Orange County Board of Supervisors............... 184
Prepared Statement of Arturo Vargas, Executive Director,
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund......................... 199
Voting Rights Cases Brought on Behalf of American Indians
and/or Interpreting the Voting Rights Act re: Indian
Interests. From Jennifer Robinson, Daniel McCool, and Susan
Olson: Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights
Act, and the Right to Vote. Forthcoming. Cambridge
University Press, 2006..................................... 259
VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203--
BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS
(Part II)
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pusuant to notice, at 5:10 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve
Chabot (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. The Committee will come to order.
Okay. We want to thank the witnesses for being here this
afternoon. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I'm
Steve Chabot, the Chairman. This is our eighth in a series of
hearings relative to the Voting Rights Act and its
reauthorization.
This is the second hearing we've had here this afternoon.
The Chair would request and ask unanimous consent that we waive
opening statements from Members up here and get right to the
panel.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I will move directly then to the introduction of our panel
of distinguished witnesses here this afternoon, soon to be this
evening.
Our first witness will be Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Executive
Director of the National Congress of American Indians. As
Executive Director, Ms. Johnson is responsible for monitoring
all Federal policy issues that affect tribal governments,
coordinating communication among tribal governments, and
overseeing consensus-based policy developments among NCAI's
250-member tribal governments.
Prior to joining NCAI, Ms. Johnson served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs at the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; was Executive
Director of the Tlingit Haida Regional--I apologize if I've
butchered that pronunciation--Housing Authority, headquartered
in Juneau, Alaska; served as Chairperson of the National
American Indian Housing Counsel, and was appointed to the
National Commission on American Indian, Alaskan Native, and
Native Hawaiian Housing.
In addition, Ms. Johnson serves on a number of boards and
national executive committees, and continues to be involved in
American Indian youth development, having served as the
Director of a Native Youth Culture Camp for 13 years.
Ms. Johnson is a member of the Raven-Sockeye Clan of the--
would you pronounce that tribe? I want to make sure I don't
mispronounce it again. Is it?
Ms. Johnson. Tlingit.
Mr. Chabot. Tlingit. Okay. Tribe. Thank you very much.
Our second witness will be Mr. K.C. McAlpin.
Mr. McAlpin currently serves as the Executive Director of
ProEnglish, a national non-profit group dedicated to preserving
English as the common language, and to making it the official
language of the United States.
Prior to his public interest work with ProEnglish, Mr.
McAlpin worked for an oil company in South America, Central
America, and the Caribbean, and served as a financial analyst
for a Fortune 500 company, and as an international controller
for a high-tech company.
Mr. McAlpin is a frequent guest on radio and television,
including Good Morning America, Fox Morning News, CNN News, C-
SPAN, Both Sides with Jesse Jackson, and the Lou Dobbs Show. We
welcome you here also, Mr. McAlpin.
Our third witness is Mr. James Tucker. Mr. Tucker is a
former trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, where he focused on voting issues.
While at the Department, Mr. Tucker was responsible for
litigating several redistricting cases, including those in
Georgia and North Carolina, as well as cases involving section
203, Federal Observer Coverage and Contempt Proceedings.
Mr. Tucker also has litigation experience in employment
cases brought under Federal statute, such as the title VII of
the Civil Rights of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Family and
Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Tucker is a former law clerk to Chief U.S. District
Judge Lawrence Paul of the North District of Florida, and is a
former Air Force veteran, serving on AWACS during Desert Storm,
operations in the Persian Gulf, and in the active reserves as
an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate. We welcome you here also,
Mr. Tucker.
Our fourth and final witness is Mr. Juan Cartagena. Am I
pronouncing that correctly? Thank you.
Mr. Cartagena is General Counsel for the Community Service
Society, a position he has held since 1991. As General Counsel,
Mr. Cartagena is responsible for directing the legal department
and public interest litigation on behalf of the poor in the
areas of voting rights, education, housing, health, and
environmental issues.
Prior to his work at CSS, Mr. Cartagena was the Legal
Director in the New York Office of the Department of Puerto
Rican Affairs in the U.S. for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and served as an attorney for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense
and Education Fund.
Mr. Cartagena has also served as a municipal court judge in
Hoboken, New Jersey, and is a part-time lecturer at Rutgers
University, Department of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Caribbean
Studies. And we welcome you here also, Mr. Cartagena.
I also want to note that without objection, all Members
will have 5 legislative days to submit additional materials for
the record, and I also note that Mr. Nadler has asked unanimous
consent--will be granted unanimous consent to enter his written
statement into the record, as all other Members will also have
that opportunity should they chose to do so.
Mr. Chabot. For those who may not have testified, I'll be
very brief in this explanation.
We have what's called the 5-minute rule. There are two
devices there that will have lights on them shortly. For 4
minutes, the green light will be on. The yellow light will come
on. That let's you know you have 1 minute to wrap up. And the
red light will come on, we'd ask you to wrap up by then, if
possible. We won't gavel you down immediately. But try to stay
within that as much as possible.
We also are limited to 5 minutes, and we apologize
profusely for running late, but we had votes during the last
hearing, and that ran us behind. And we also have three votes
coming up here in a very short time, so we may be further
delayed. And again, please accept our sincere apologies for
that.
For those of you who may not have also testified before, it
is the policy of this court to swear in all witnesses, so if
you would please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Chabot. All witnesses have indicated in the
affirmative, and we're now ready for our first witness, so, Ms.
Johnson, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Ms. Johnson. Kus'een yu xat du wasaak. Lu kaa adi aya xat.
Kogwaantan yadei. Veith Lit daax.
In my own language, Tlingit, I introduced myself and my
Tlingit name is Kus'een, and I come from the village outside of
Haines, Alaska, Chilkoot, and I come from the Raven-Sockeye
house.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the
Subcommittee, for me being able to testify on behalf of the
National Congress of American Indians and the Native American
Rights Fund.
I appreciate this opportunity to express our support for
the reauthorization of all the provisions in the Voting Rights
Act that are scheduled to expire in 2007, and in particular,
I'm going to testify today on the reauthorization of section
203, the Continuing Need for the Minority Language Assistance
Provisions, which recognizes the indigenous languages
throughout Indian country.
Since 1944, the National Congress of American Indians has
worked diligently to strengthen and protect and inform the
public and Congress on the governmental rights of American
Indians and Alaska Natives.
NCAI is the oldest and the largest national organization
addressing American Indians' interests, representing over 250-
member tribes throughout the U.S.
Since 1971, the Native Americans Rights Fund has provided
legal and technical service to individuals, groups, and
organizations on major issues facing Native people. NARF has
become one of the largest Native non-profit legal advocacy
organizations in the United States.
Last week, at the NCAI Annual Session in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
tribal leaders throughout the country passed a resolution
calling upon Congress to reauthorize and expand the Minority
Language Provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This resolution
is attached and submitted as part of my written record.
Native Americans were historically disenfranchised people.
Although Native Americans have inhabited North America longer
than other segment of the American society, they were the last
group to receive the right to vote when the United States
finally made them citizens in 1924. And even after 1924,
certain States with large Native populations barred Native
Americans from voting by setting discriminatory voter
registration requirements; for example, various States denied
Indians the right to vote because they were under guardianship,
or Indians were denied the right to vote because they could not
prove that they were civilized by moving off the reservation
and renouncing their tribal ties.
New Mexico was that last State to remove all expressed
legal impediments to voting for Native Americans in 1962, 3
years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
In addition, Native Americans have experienced many of the
discriminatory tactics that kept the African-Americans in the
South from exercising the franchise.
With the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Congress
took the first steps necessary to start the process to
remedying the history of discrimination and disenfranchisement.
While we have made tremendous progress in the last 40 years, we
still have a long ways to go.
When the Voting Rights Act came up for reauthorization in
1975, Congress took another major step in adding section 203 to
the Voting Rights Act.
Congress did so based upon its finding that educational
inequality and racial discrimination prohibited full
participation in the democratic process by Native Americans,
Alaska Natives, and other language minority groups.
In 1992, Congress moved forward again, passing the Voting
Rights language amendments, the provisions which are the
subject of today's hearing.
At that time, Congress heard testimony from members of--a
number of leaders across Indian country, all whom testified the
importance of the Minority Language Provisions to Native
communities. NCAI and NARF offered joint testimony in 1992, as
well as documented the persistent educational inequalities and
discrimination in voting that persists today.
While significant progress has been made in franchising
Native Americans, the need for section 203 has not diminished
in the years since Congress has added that section to the
Voting Rights Act.
The value of section 203 to Indian country cannot be
overstated. Today, to the new determinations released by the
Census Bureau in July of 2002, 88 jurisdictions in 17 States
are covered jurisdictions that need to provide language
assistance to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Section 203 has resulted in the filing of numerous minority
language assistance cases involving American Indians and the
vast majority being resolved by consent decree with covered
jurisdictions agreeing to provide the necessary translations of
written voter materials or the necessary oral assistance in
polling places.
While no one knows exactly how many Native language
speakers live in the U.S. today, the language provisions of 203
continue to be critical for many Native communities.
In many Native communities, tribal business is conducted
exclusively or primarily in their own Native language, while
many people, particularly our elders, speak English only as a
second language. Even if they have English language skills,
many Indian people still have and say that they feel more
comfortable speaking in their own Native language and are
better to understand the complicated ballot issues in their
Native language.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the Federal Government, as
expressed by the Native American Languages Act of 1990, to
preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native
Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American
languages.
The Native American Language Act was the first and may be
the only Federal law to guarantee the right of language
minority groups to use its language in public proceedings.
Disenfranchising Native Americans by failing to provide
language assistance in the electoral process to those who need
it would certainly violate the statutory right.
Section 203 ensures Native people, particularly our elders,
many who speak English poorly, have access to the ballot box.
As we continue today, I hope that you continue to encourage
and to be able to ensure that the Native language provisions,
or the language provisions in section 203 are maintained. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacqueline Johnson
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf
of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Native
American Rights Fund (NARF), I appreciate this opportunity to express
our support for reauthorization of all of the provisions in the Voting
Rights Act that are scheduled to expire in 2007; and in particular, to
testify today in support of reauthorization of Section 203 and the
continuing need for the minority language assistance provisions
throughout Indian country.
Since 1944, the National Congress of American Indians has worked
diligently to strengthen, protect and inform the public and Congress on
the governmental rights of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. NCAI
is the oldest and largest national organization addressing American
Indian interests, representing more than 250 member tribes throughout
the United States. Since 1971, the Native American Rights Fund has
provided legal and technical services to individuals, groups and
organizations on major issues facing Native people. NARF has become one
of the largest Native non-profit legal advocacy organizations in the
United States, dedicating its resources to the preservation of tribal
existence, the protection of tribal natural and cultural resources, the
promotion of human rights and the accountability of governments to
Native Americans.
TESTIMONY--SECTION 203 SHOULD BE REAUTHORIZED
Last week at the NCAI Annual Session in Tulsa, Oklahoma, tribal
leaders from across the nation passed a Resolution calling upon the
Congress to re-authorize and expand the minority language provisions of
the Voting Rights Act. This resolution is attached and submitted for
the record. Native Americans were an historically disenfranchised
people. Although Native Americans have inhabited North America longer
than any other segment of American-society, they were the last group to
receive the right to vote when the United States finally made them
citizens in 1924. Even after 1924, certain states with large native
populations barred Native Americans from voting by setting
discriminatory voter registration requirements. For example, various
states denied Indians the right to vote because they were ``under
guardianship,'' or Indians were denied the right to vote unless they
could prove they were ``civilized'' by moving off of the reservation
and renouncing their tribal ties. New Mexico was the last State to
remove all express legal impediments to voting for Native Americans in
1962, three years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In
addition, Native Americans have experienced many of the discriminatory
tactics that kept African-Americans in the South from exercising the
franchise.
With the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Congress took the
first necessary steps to start the process of remedying this history of
discrimination and disenfranchisement. While we have made tremendous
progress in the last 40 years, we still have a long way to go. When the
Voting Rights Act came up for reauthorization in 1975, Congress heard
extensive testimony regarding voting discrimination suffered not just
by African-Americans, but also by Hispanics, Asian-Americans and
American Indians. As a result, Congress took another major step by
adding section 203 to the Voting Rights Act. Congress did so based on
its finding that educational inequality and racial discrimination
prohibited full participation in the democratic process by Native
Americans, Alaskan Natives and other language minority groups.
In 1992, Congress moved forward again, passing the Voting Rights
Language Assistance Amendments--the provisions which are the subject of
today's hearing. Under the 1992 amendments, Congress strengthened the
triggering mechanism of section 203 by adding a numerical threshold
provision and by adding the so-called ``Indian trigger''--wherein a
state or political subdivision is ``covered'' if it contains all or any
part of an Indian reservation where more than five percent of the
American Indian or Alaskan Native voting age population are members of
a single language minority and have limited English proficiency. In
1992, Congress heard testimony from a number of leaders from across
Indian Country, all of whom testified about the importance of the
minority language provisions to Native communities. NCAI and NARF
offered joint testimony at that time as well and documented persistent
educational inequities and discrimination in voting that persist today.
In passing the 1992 Language Assistance Amendments, Congress clearly
recognized the need for language assistance in American Indian and
Alaskan Native communities.
While significant progress has been made in enfranchising Native
Americans, the need for Section 203 has not diminished in the years
since Congress added that section to the Voting Rights Act.
Historically disenfranchised, Native Americans continue to need and to
use language assistance in the electoral process today. This assistance
enables those who understand their own language better than they
understand English to effectively participate in the democratic
process. The value of Section 203 to Indian country cannot be
overstated. Today, according to the new determinations released by the
Census Bureau in July 2002, eighty-eight (88) jurisdictions in
seventeen (17) states are covered jurisdictions that need to provide
language assistance to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Section
203 has resulted in the filing of numerous minority language assistance
cases involving American Indians, with the vast majority being resolved
by consent decree with the covered jurisdictions agreeing to provide
the necessary translations of written voter materials, or the necessary
oral assistance at polling places.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., U.S. v. Bernalillo County, No. 98-156-BB/LCS (D.N.M.
July 1, 2003); U.S. v. Arizona, No. 88-1989-PHX EHC (D.Ariz. May 22
1989, amended September 27, 1993); and U.S. v. San Juan County, No. C-
83-1287 (D.Utah Oct. 11, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While no one knows exactly how many Native American language
speakers live in the U.S. today, the language provisions of Section 203
continue to be critical for many Native communities. In many Native
communities, tribal business is conducted exclusively or primarily in
Native languages. Many Native people, particularly our elders, speak
English only as a second language. Even if they have English language
skills, many Indian people have said that they feel more comfortable
speaking their Native language and are better able to understand
complicated ballot issues in their Native language. Furthermore, it is
the policy of the federal government, as expressed in the Native
American Languages Act of 1990 (NALA) to ``preserve, protect, and
promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice,
and develop Native American languages.'' \2\ The NALA was the first,
and may be the only, federal law to guarantee the right of a language
minority group to use its language in ``public proceedings.''
Disenfranchising Native Americans by failing to provide language
assistance in the electoral process to those who need it would surely
violate this statutory right. Section 203 ensures all Native people,
particularly our elders, many of whom speak English poorly if at all,
have access to the ballot box. At the same time, it recognizes the
importance of preserving and honoring indigenous languages and
cultures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 25 U.S.C. 2901, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally, voter participation rates by American Indians and
Alaskan Natives have always been among the lowest of all communities
within the United States. While voter registration and turnout by
Native American voters is still below non-Native averages in many parts
of the country, many Native communities have seen steady, even
significant increases, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In
recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of Native
American candidates who are being elected to local school boards,
county commissions and state legislatures.
In 2004, the National Congress of American Indians spearheaded a
groundbreaking campaign to register and turn out a record number of
American Indian and Alaskan Native voters. Known as ``Native Vote
2004,'' NCAI, in collaboration with various national and regional
organizations, local tribal governments, urban Indian centers and, most
important, many grassroots organizations throughout Indian country,
coordinated an extensive national non-partisan effort to mobilize the
Native vote and to ensure that every Native vote was counted. The
culmination of the Native Vote 2004 efforts on November 2nd was a
resounding moment for tribal governments nationwide, as it empowered
Native voters and raised the profile of Native issues in the eyes of
politicians.
In the appendices to our testimony, we have provided a copy of our
study: Native Vote 2004: A National Survey and Analysis of Efforts to
Increase the Native Vote in 2004 and the Results Achieved. To our
knowledge, this report is the first of its kind in Indian country. This
study provides background information, Native voter participation data
and election results for eight states: Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota,
Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin. Each
assessment provides invaluable information regarding how the Voting
Rights Act is working in Indian country, and the challenges that still
lie ahead.
We anticipate that the substance of this report will provide, in
part, the evidentiary basis underlying the need to strengthen and
extend the Voting Rights Act. At its essence, the research shows a
direct correlation between focused localized commitments to increasing
voter participation rates in Native communities and the actual
increases that result. I submit to you that Section 203 is an essential
component to ensuring the success of such focused localized commitments
in our Native communities. Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman's time has
expired.
I'd like to explain what's going on here. The bells
indicate that we've been called to the floor for a series of
votes. Unfortunately, those series of votes are going to extend
over probably an hour's period of time, so we have somewhat of
a dilemma here. We could come back after an hour, which would
inconvenience the panel obviously even more than they've
already been inconvenienced.
We've come up with possible plan, and what we have
indicated, and I think the minority side is agreeable with this
is that we would allow the witnesses to submit their testimony
in writing. We would then have access to all that, read it, and
then be able to submit questions to the panel, and if you all
would be willing to get those questions back to us.
The alternative to that is to come back or to have another
hearing on another date, but we don't want to inconvenience the
panel there as well.
And I would at this point yield to perhaps the Ranking
Minority, Mr. Conyers, to perhaps get his input. I think the
staff has indicated they were--they had talked to Mr. Nadler,
and he's agreeable to submitting in writing and not having
another.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that
procedure.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Is there--members of the witness panel
okay with that? Would you be willing to submit in writing your
statements?
Ms. Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Chabot. I think all the witnesses are indicating in the
affirmative. We will then submit to you in writing our
questions, and if you could get those responses back to them,
they will all be entered into the record, just as if this had
been done orally.
I apologize for any inconvenience, but it would be
inconvenient really any way we handled this at this point, and
because of the lateness of the hour, I think probably this is
the best solution under the circumstances.
So if there's no further business to come before this
Committee, that will be the process that we'll follow. And,
again, I want to apologize to the panel, but we will do this in
writing just as we would have done it orally had you been here.
Mr. Cartagena?
Mr. Cartagena. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick question--
--
Mr. Chabot. Yes.
Mr. Cartagena. --for clarification. Would it be possible
for each one of us members of this panel to receive each
other's submission, because many times the questions that you
will ask are----
Mr. Chabot. Absolutely.
Mr. Cartagena. --informed by the positions taken by other
members.
Mr. Chabot. Absolutely. And we'll rather than have the
questions come at you from different angles, we'll have the
staff get these all together so you get our questions all at
one time together, and we'll make sure that you all are
provided with each other's statements as well.
I think Mr. Nadler is in agreement as well.
Mr. Nadler. Yes. He's in accord.
Mr. Chabot. Is in accord. So we're all in agreement? So if
there is no further business to come before the Committee,
we're adjourned.
Thank you
[Whereupon, at 5:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203--
BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS
(Part II--Continued)
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve
Chabot (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. The Committee will come back to order.
I, first of all, want to apologize again to our witness
panel for being interfered with by the votes on the floor,
which of course occurs periodically around here, but since we
had two hearings on the Voting Rights Act scheduled yesterday,
and the first one pushed into the second one, it made things,
unfortunately, a little more awkward than they otherwise would
have been. And I want to also indicate again that we had
essentially come up with a procedure where we would submit
questions in writing. The panel was gracious enough to be
willing to come back and testify again today. I expect other
members of the panel to arrive here shortly.
We only have this room until 10 o'clock because there is
already a previously scheduled hearing on the Subcommittee on
Crime, and it is at 10 o'clock.
When we ended yesterday, Ms. Johnson had already given her
opening statement. We will now go to the other members of the
witness panel who have already been sworn in. We had already
waived opening statements up here and agreed, because of the
shortness of time, that we would go immediately to questions
after the statements. So without objection, we will continue
that.
And at this point, Mr. McAlpin, I will go to you for your
opening statement. And again, it is a 5-minute opening
statement. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF K.C. McALPIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROENGLISH
Mr. McAlpin. Mr. Chairman 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 immigrants,
according to the most recent poll.
Bilingual ballots are a costly, unfunded 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
bilingual ballot provisions to the Voting Rights Act 10 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 Alaska
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 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 that 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 emigrating. It is wrong to impose
extraordinary election 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.
Bilingual ballots are also an affront to millions of
naturalized American citizens who emigrated to this country,
played by the rules, and made great sacrifices to learn
English.
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 noncitizens have been
caught illegally registering and voting.
Mr. Chairman, bilingual ballots also undermine our national
unity. We are in the midst of the largest and most diverse flow
of immigration in our Nation's history. As the distinguished
Chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and a former
Member of this House, the late Barbara Jordan, said in
testifying to Congress, quote, cultural and religious diversity
does not pose a threat to the national interest as long as
public policies ensure civic unity.
Removing incentives to learn English does not help ensure
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
premarked paper ballot with them when they vote, and they have
the right to take an interpreter into the poll with them. The
law states 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. 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 the first language by people of
every race, 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.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McAlpin follows:]
Prepared Statement of K.C. McAlpin
Mr. Chabot. Before we move to our next witness, I just
wanted to recognize a distinguished gentleman that is with us
here this morning, a former Member of the House of
Representatives, Congressman John Buchanan from Alabama, who is
a member of the National Commission on Voting Rights Act, and
we welcome you, Representative Buchanan.
And now we will move to our next witness. Mr. Tucker, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES TUCKER, ATTORNEY, OGLETREE DEAKINS, P.C.,
ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, BARRETT HONORS COLLEGE AT ARIZONA STATE
UNIVERSITY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mr. Tucker. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for your invitation to testify on a matter of
critical importance to all Americans, reauthorization of the
temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act that will expire
in August of 2007. My comments will focus on sections 4(f)(4)
and 203 of the act.
The language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act
received strong bipartisan support each time Congress
previously considered them in 1975, 1982 and 1992. The same
holds true today, as members of both parties and the
Subcommittee have recognized by addressing the continuing need
for these two sections nearly 2 years before they expire.
I want to begin by briefly addressing the constitutionality
of the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act,
since that issue came up on Tuesday. The reason no one has
challenged these provisions is simple: The United States
Supreme Court resolved the issue 39 years ago in Katzenbach v.
Morgan when it upheld section 4(e) of the act. The State of New
York argued that section 4(e) of the act was unconstitutional
as applied to New York, which had passed an English language
requirement for voting to give language minorities an incentive
to learn English.
The Court rejected that assertion, finding that Congress
may have, quote, questioned whether denial of a right being so
precious and fundamental in our society was a necessary or
appropriate means of encouraging persons to learn English or
furthering the goal of an intelligent exercise of the
franchise.
Katzenbach upheld the language assistance provisions as the
valid exercise of congressional enforcement powers under the
14th and 15th amendments, which the Court recognize give,
quote, the same broad powers expressed in the necessary and
proper clause.
In 1975, Congress relied upon section 4(e) as the
foundation for sections 4(f)(4) and 203. Congress noted its
constitutional exercise of its enforcement powers by expressly
citing Katzenbach and the Court's decision in Meyer v.
Nebraska, a 1923 case in which the Court struck down a
prohibition on English in public schools--I'm sorry, in
languages other than English in public schools.
As the Supreme Court observed in Meyer, quote, ``the
protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who
speak other languages as well as those born with English on the
tongue.'' Congress agreed with this reasoning in enacting
sections 4(f)(4) and 203.
Now I would like to discuss the extent to which previously
covered jurisdictions have fulfilled the congressional intent
in those two sections.
Congress previously commissioned GAO, in 1984 and in 1986,
to examine this issue. The purpose of our study is to update
the cost data collected by the two GAO studies and to determine
the practice of public elections officials in providing oral
and written language assistance. A total of 810 jurisdictions
in 33 States were surveyed. Over half of all the jurisdictions
in 31 States responded, making this the most comprehensive
study of its kind ever conducted.
Some critics have opposed section 203 because they believe
it imposes high costs on local election officials. Their fears
have not materialized. The costs of compliance were modest, if
there are any costs at all. Of the jurisdictions reporting oral
language assistance expenses, 59.1 percent report incurring no
expense at all. Similarly, of the jurisdictions reporting
written language material expenses, 54.2 percent do not incur
any additional costs. Of the jurisdictions reporting complete
election expenses, 39.5 percent do not incur any added cost for
either oral or written language assistance.
Many covered jurisdictions report election practices that
fall short of complying with the Voting Rights Act. The absence
of bilingual oral language assistance in these jurisdictions
can be a significant deterrent to limited English-proficient
voters seeking to participate in elections. Sixty-nine
responding jurisdictions do not report providing any assistance
at all.
For instance, less than half of the respondents report
providing assistance for telephone inquiries from voters in all
of the covered languages. Significantly, 57.1 percent of the
responding jurisdictions report they do not have one full-time
worker fluent in the covered language. Only 38.2 percent report
having a bilingual coordinator who speaks the covered language
and acts as a liaison with the covered language groups. Only
37.3 percent report that they consult with community
organizations or individuals from the covered language groups
about providing election assistance in those languages.
Furthermore, even where jurisdictions provide the bilingual
materials, many acknowledge not doing so for all materials.
Most covered jurisdictions acknowledge they do not provide oral
language assistance at all stages of the election process.
Nearly two-thirds of responding jurisdictions do not require
any confirmation of the language abilities of part-time poll
workers who are supposed to be out there helping the voters.
Two-thirds of the respondents reported that their poll worker
training does not include information about the languages
covered in the jurisdiction. Only 10.3 percent of the
respondents reported voter assistance practices that are at
least as protective as section 208. Despite falling short of
what section 203 requires--and I see my time is expired, if I
can have another minute to sum up.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection.
Mr. Tucker. Most election officials report that they
support the provision. One respondent described language
assistance as, quote, ``common sense;'' others emphasize it as,
quote, ``inclusivity'' and tendency to, quote, ``make voters
feel more comfortable coming to the polls knowing that there is
help if it is needed.'' One jurisdiction observes that, quote,
``language assistance is extremely important in ensuring the
integrity of the U.S. Election process and the legitimacy of
government outcomes.'' Many jurisdictions commend the Justice
Department's enforcement efforts. As another respondent
observes, quote, ``the Federal Government has done a lot to
provide minority language assistance; much remains to be
done.''
Our study's findings highlight the continuing need for
language assistance. State and local election officials agree.
Of the responding jurisdictions, 71.3 percent think that the
Federal language assistance provision should remain in effect
for public elections. For these reasons, I recommend in the
strongest terms that the temporary provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, including sections 4, 6, 8 and 203, be
reauthorized.
Thank you very much for your attention. I will welcome the
opportunity to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tucker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James Thomas Tucker
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
invitation to testify on a matter of critical importance to all
Americans: reauthorization of the temporary provisions of the Voting
Rights Act that will expire in August 2007. My comments will focus on
Section 203 of the Act. The language assistance provisions of the
Voting Rights Act received strong bipartisan support each time Congress
previously considered them in 1975, 1982, and 1992. As Senator Orrin
Hatch observed during the 1992 hearings, ``[t]he right to vote is one
of the most fundamental of human rights. Unless government assures
access to the ballot box, citizenship is just an empty promise. Section
203 of the Voting Rights Act, containing bilingual election
requirements, is an integral part of our government's assurance that
Americans do have such access.'' \1\ Senator Hatch's observation is
equally true today, as Members of both Parties and this Subcommittee
have recognized by addressing the continuing need for Section 203
nearly two years before it expires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Voting Rights Act Language Assistance Amendments of 1992:
Hearings on S. 2236 Before the Subcomm. On the Constitution of the
Senate Comm. On the Judiciary [1992 hearings], 102d Cong., 2d Sess., S.
Hrg. 102-1066, at 134 (1992) (statement of Sen. Hatch).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am an attorney in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona and an
Adjunct Professor at the Barrett Honors College at Arizona State
University. I hold a Doctor of the Science of Laws (or S.J.D.) degree
from the University of Pennsylvania. I previously worked as a senior
trial attorney in the Justice Department's Voting Section, in which a
substantial amount of my work focused on Section 203 enforcement. I
also have a forthcoming article on Section 203 that will be provided to
Members of the Subcommittee. I have teamed with Dr. Rodolfo Espino, a
Professor in ASU's Department of Political Science who holds a Ph.D. in
Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, to co-
direct a nationwide study of minority language assistance practices in
public elections. Our research team includes ten extraordinary students
in the Barrett Honors College, who have labored countless hours over
the last eighteen months to produce the information I will discuss
today.\2\ Our report will be released by the end of this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before discussing our study, I will outline the scope and
requirements of the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights
Act to place our findings into context. The provisions apply to four
language groups: Alaskan Natives; American Indians; persons of Spanish
Heritage; and Asian Americans.\3\ Each of these language groups
includes several distinct languages and dialects.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1973l(c)(3), 1973aa-1a(e).
\4\ See 121 Cong. Rec H4716 (daily ed. June 2, 1975) (statement of
Rep. Edwards). When the 1975 amendments were enacted, the Bureau of the
Census defined the language minority groups in the following manner:
[T]he category of Asian American includes persons who
indicated their race as Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, or
Korean. The category of American Indian includes persons
who indicated their race as Indian (American) or who did
not indicate a specific race category but reported the name
of an Indian tribe. The population designated as Alaskan
Native includes persons residing in Alaska who identified
themselves as Aleut, Eskimo or American Indian. Persons of
Spanish heritage are identified as (a) `persons of Spanish
language' in 42 States and the District of Columbia; (b)
`persons of Spanish language' as well as `persons of
Spanish surname' in Arizona, California, Colorado, Mew
Mexico, and Texas; and (c) `persons of Puerto Rican birth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
or parentage in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.' ''
S. Rep. No. 94-295 at 24 n.14, reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 790-91
n.14 (quoting Letter from Meyer Zitter, Chief, Population Division,
Bureau of the Census, to House Judiciary Committee, Apr. 29, 1975).
Jurisdictions are selected for coverage through two separate
triggering formulas. Under Section 4(f)(4) of the Act, a jurisdiction
is covered if three criteria are met as of November 1, 1972: (1) over
five percent of voting age citizens were members of a single language
group; (2) the jurisdiction used English-only election materials; and
(3) less than fifty percent of voting age citizens were registered to
vote or fewer than fifty percent voted in the 1972 Presidential
election.\5\ This trigger covers jurisdictions that have experienced
``more serious problems'' of voting discrimination against language
minority citizens.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973b(b).
\6\ S. Rep. No. 94-295 at 31, reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 798;
see also id. at 9, reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 775 (section 4(f)(4)
applies to areas ``where severe voting discrimination was documented''
against language minorities). Specifically, ``the more severe remedies
of title II are premised not only on educational disparities'' like the
less stringent provisions under title III of the 1975 amendments, ``but
also on evidence that language minorities have been subjected to
`physical, economic, and political intimidation' when they seek to
participate in the political process.'' 121 Cong. Rec. H4718 (daily ed.
June 2, 1975) (statement of Rep. Edwards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdictions covered under Section 4(f)(4) must provide assistance
in the language triggering coverage and are subject to the Act's
special provisions, including Section 5 preclearance, Section 6 federal
examiner coverage, and Section 8 federal observer coverage. Section
4(f)(4) coverage applies in three states (Alaska for Alaskan Natives,
and Arizona and Texas for Spanish Heritage) and nineteen counties or
townships in six additional states.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Figure C-1. Coverage determinations were published at 40
Fed. Reg. 43746 (Sept. 23, 1975), 40 Fed. Reg. 49422 (Oct. 22, 1975),
41 Fed. Reg. 784 (Jan. 5, 1976) (corrected at 41 Fed. Reg. 1503 (Jan.
8, 1976)), and 41 Fed. Reg. 34329 (Aug. 13, 1976). Covered counties in
Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma have bailed out pursuant to Section
4(a) of the Voting Rights Act. See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 55.7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Section 203 of the Act, a jurisdiction is covered if the
Director of the Census determines that two criteria are met. First, the
limited-English proficient citizens of voting age in a single language
group: (a) number more than 10,000; (b) comprise more than five percent
of all citizens of voting age; or (c) comprise more than five percent
of all American Indians of a single language group residing on an
Indian reservation. Second, the illiteracy rate of the language
minority citizens must exceed the national illiteracy rate.\8\ A person
is ``limited-English proficient'' (or LEP) if he or she speaks English
``less than very well'' and would need assistance to participate in the
political process effectively.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973aa-1a(b)(2).
\9\ See generally 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973aa-1a(b)(3)(B) (defining
``limited-English proficient'' as the inability ``to speak or
understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral
process''). The 1992 House Report explains the manner in which the
Director of Census determines the number of limited-English proficient
persons:
The Director of the Census determines limited English
proficiency based upon information included on the long
form of the decennial census. The long form, however, is
only received by approximately 17 percent of the total
population. Those few who do receive the long form and
speak a language other than English at home are asked to
evaluate their own English proficiency. The form requests
that they respond to a question inquiring how well they
speak English by checking one of the four answers
provided--``very well,'' ``well,'' ``not well,'' or ``not
at all.'' The Census Bureau has determined that most
respondents over-estimate their English proficiency and
therefore, those who answer other than ``very well'' are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
deemed LEP.
H.R. Rep. No. 102-655 at 8, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 772.
Jurisdictions that are covered under Section 203 of the Act must
provide written materials and assistance in the covered language.
Generally, written materials do not have to be provided for
historically unwritten Alaskan Native or American Indian languages.\10\
After the most recent Census Department determinations on July 26,
2002, five states are covered in their entirety (Alaska for Alaskan
Natives, and Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for Spanish
Heritage) and twenty-six states are partially covered in a total of
twenty-nine languages.\11\ Language assistance must be provided under
either Section 4(f)(4) or Section 203 in 505 jurisdictions, which
includes all counties or parishes, and those townships or boroughs
specifically identified for coverage.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973aa-1a(c).
\11\ See Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1992, Determinations Under
Section 203, 67 Fed. Reg. 48,871 (July 26, 2002) (to be codified at 28
C.F.R. pt. 55) (``2002 Determinations''). Two states that previously
were covered in part by Section 203, Iowa and Wisconsin, no longer are
covered. See id.; 28 C.F.R. pt. 55, App. Section 203 coverage has been
extended to political subdivisions of five states not covered
previously: Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, and Washington. See
2002 Determinations, supra; 28 C.F.R. pt. 55, App.
\12\ See Figure C-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been few studies examining how jurisdictions have
actually implemented the Congressional mandate to provide language
assistance in public elections. The General Accounting Office conducted
studies in 1984 and 1997 to determine the costs associated with
language materials and assistance under Section 203. The 1984 GAO study
obtained information from 318 political subdivisions and nineteen state
governments.\13\ The 1997 study reported data from 292 covered
jurisdictions in 26 states.\14\ Both studies were limited somewhat by
the inability of many responding jurisdictions to provide the costs of
bilingual voting assistance. Our study encountered similar
problems.\15\ Nevertheless, for those jurisdictions that reported
complete expense data, the costs of compliance generally comprise only
a small fraction of total election expenses. Congress relied upon the
1984 GAO report to extend Section 203 in 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., Bilingual Voting Assistance: Costs
of and Use During the 1984 General Election 11-12 (1986) (``1984 GAO
Study'').
\14\ See U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., Bilingual Voting Assistance:
Assistance Provided and Costs 1, 33 (1997).
\15\ See Figure E-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of our study is to update the cost data collected by
the two GAO studies and to determine the practices of public elections
officials in providing oral and written language assistance. Our survey
assesses the availability and quality of assistance in several
different areas: the use of bilingual coordinators who act as liaisons
between the election office and the covered language groups;
recruitment and training of election day poll workers; telephonic
assistance; oral language assistance at every stage of the election
process; written language materials provided to limited-English
proficient voters; outreach and publicity; and the ability of voters to
receive assistance from the person of their choice. The survey
concludes by asking about the respondent's views of reauthorization and
the federal government's role in providing language assistance, and an
open-ended question about the jurisdiction's experiences under Section
203.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The questions are derived from the Voting Rights Act and
Census definitions. Survey results have been analyzed in light of
Census 2000 data and the number and type of languages covered in each
jurisdiction. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 810 jurisdictions in thirty-three states were surveyed.
The surveyed jurisdictions include: all jurisdictions specifically
identified by the Census Department under either Section 4(f)(4) or
Section 203; all counties in the five states that are covered; all
cities in covered jurisdictions that the 2000 Census reports as having
50,000 or more people; a handful of jurisdictions that no longer are
covered as a result of the 2002 Census determinations; and the chief
elections officer in each of the surveyed states. Jurisdictions were
guaranteed anonymity to increase the likelihood that they would
complete the survey. Over half of all surveyed jurisdictions responded.
Complete responses were received from 361 jurisdictions in thirty-one
states, making this the most comprehensive study of its kind ever
conducted.\17\ The actual number of responses varies because some
questions did not apply to all respondents and some respondents chose
not to answer certain questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Appendix D for more information on the survey respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some critics have opposed Section 203 because they believe it
imposes high costs on local election officials. Their fears have not
materialized. The costs of compliance are modest if there are any costs
at all. Of the 154 jurisdictions reporting oral language assistance
expenses, 59.1 percent (91 jurisdictions) incur no extra costs.\18\
Similarly, of the 144 jurisdictions reporting written language material
expenses, 54.2 percent (78 jurisdictions) do not incur any additional
costs.\19\ Of the 158 jurisdictions reporting complete election
expenses, 39.5 percent (60 jurisdictions) do not incur any added costs
for either oral or written language assistance.\20\ Other jurisdictions
provided narrative responses indicating no additional expenses for the
following: twenty-three for oral language assistance; thirteen for
written language materials; and six for both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Figure E-2.
\19\ See Figure E-5.
\20\ See Figure E-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents attribute the lack of additional costs to several
factors. Many report hiring bilingual poll workers who are paid the
same wages as other poll workers. Jurisdictions with Alaskan Native and
American Indian voters report that bilingual materials are not provided
because the covered languages are unwritten. Several jurisdictions
providing bilingual written materials use election officials or
community volunteers to translate materials, resulting in no additional
costs. In many cases, printing costs do not increase as a result of
having bilingual written materials. A number of jurisdictions in New
Mexico and Texas report that state laws have language assistance
requirements similar to Section 203, resulting in no additional cost
for federal compliance.
Of the 154 jurisdictions reporting complete data for oral language
assistance, the average cost is 4.9 percent of all election expenses.
However, the top ten percent of respondents (16 jurisdictions) skew
this result by reporting average costs of 34 percent. By contrast, the
remaining 138 jurisdictions report average costs of only 1.5
percent.\21\ Two factors contribute to the disparate results. Some of
the sixteen jurisdictions attribute all of their election expenses,
including costs for hiring permanent staff and Election Day poll
workers who have to be hired regardless of Section 203, to oral
language assistance. Furthermore, these sixteen jurisdictions are less
populated, with an average total population of 40,262 compared to an
average total population of 170,439 in the remaining jurisdictions.
When these factors are taken into consideration, our study reveals oral
language costs close to the average of 2.9 percent originally reported
by the GAO in 1984.\22\ The average cost of oral language assistance
remains approximately the same, regardless of the percentage of voters
who need language assistance.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Figure E-3.
\22\ See 1984 GAO Study at 20.
\23\ See Figure E-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar pattern emerges for the cost of written language
materials. Of the 144 jurisdictions reporting complete data for written
materials, the average cost is 8.1 percent. Again, the top ten percent
of all respondents skewed the results, with fifteen jurisdictions
reporting average written costs of 51.8 percent. The remaining 129
jurisdictions report average written costs of only 3.0 percent.\24\
These disparate results occur for the same reasons as those reported
for oral language assistance. The fifteen outlying jurisdictions have
an average total population of 35,664 compared to an average total
population of 180,529 for the other 129 jurisdictions. All of the
outliers also attribute most--and in a few cases all--of their total
written costs to bilingual election materials. When these factors are
taken into consideration, the average cost of providing written
language materials is substantially below the 7.6 percent reported by
the GAO in 1984.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Figure E-6.
\25\ See 1984 GAO Study at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even where some costs are incurred, most jurisdictions report that
they are negligible because they target language assistance to only
those areas that require it. During the 1992 hearings, Congress
described effective targeting as whether ``it is designed and
implemented in a manner that ensures that all members of the language
minority who need assistance, receive assistance.'' \26\ Some
jurisdictions have heeded these instructions to minimize their costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ H. Rep. No. 102-655 at 9, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 773.
The legislative history from the original 1975 amendments also
describes the use of effective targeting. See Cong. Rec. S13650 (daily
ed. July 24, 1975) (statement of Sen. Tunney); S. Rep. No. 94-295 at
69, reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 820. The Department of Justice
guidelines explicitly provide for targeting. See also 28 C.F.R.
Sec. 55.17 (stating the Attorney General's view ``that a targeting
system will normally fulfill the Act's minority language requirements
if it is designed and implemented in such a way that language minority
group members who need minority language materials and assistance
receive them''). Even opponents of Section 203 have endorsed the use of
targeting. See generally Statement of Stanley Diamond, Chairman of U.S.
English, on Proposed Extension of Voting Rights Act, in S. 2236
Hearings, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., S. Hrg. 102-1066, at 300 (describing
targeting as the ``least objectionable alternative'' where it is
limited to voter assistance and does not include ``printing all
materials in languages other than English'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many covered jurisdictions report election practices that fall
short of complying with the Voting Rights Act. Of the jurisdictions
responding to the survey, 80.6 percent (287 jurisdictions) report
providing some type of language assistance to voters: 60.4 percent (215
jurisdictions) report providing both oral and written language
assistance, 14 percent (50 jurisdictions) report only providing written
language materials, and 6.2 percent (22 jurisdictions) report only
providing oral language assistance.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Figure E-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 215 jurisdictions that report providing both oral and written
language assistance include: 211 jurisdictions covered for Spanish
Heritage, with an average Hispanic voting age population of 29.0
percent, of whom 39.0 percent are limited-English proficient; 16
jurisdictions covered for Asian-American languages, with an average
voting age population of 13.8 percent, of whom 43.3 percent are
limited-English proficient; and 26 jurisdictions covered for Alaskan
Native or American Indian languages, with an average voting age
population of 12.4 percent, of whom 20.5 percent are limited-English
proficient.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Figure E-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdictions providing language assistance are more likely to be
covered under Section 4(f)(4) or 203 in their own right than those that
do not, which tend to be covered sub-jurisdictions such as counties or
cities. There is no relationship between the jurisdiction's total
population and whether that jurisdiction provides assistance.
The 50 jurisdictions that report providing only bilingual written
materials \29\ generally have large numbers of limited-English
proficient voters in one or more of the covered languages. This group
includes 47 Spanish Heritage covered jurisdictions, which have an
average Hispanic voting age population of 18.3 percent, of whom 45.4
percent are limited-English proficient. The 13 jurisdictions covered
for Asian-American languages that provide only bilingual materials have
higher percentages of Asian voting age population and LEP voters than
the 16 Asian-American covered jurisdictions providing both oral and
written language assistance. According to the 2000 Census, these 13
jurisdictions have an average Asian voting age population of 17.0
percent, of whom 44.6 percent are limited-English proficient. The
average percentages of both Spanish Heritage and Asian-American voting
age citizens in all 50 jurisdictions are high enough to require full
compliance with Section 203.\30\ Moreover, the absence of bilingual
oral language assistance in these jurisdictions can be a significant
deterrent to LEP voters seeking to participate in elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Figure E-13.
\30\ Two of the jurisdictions providing only bilingual election
materials also are covered for American Indian languages. These
jurisdictions only have an average American Indian voting age
population of .7 percent, of whom 12.4 percent are limited-English
proficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 22 jurisdictions that report providing only oral language
assistance, over two-thirds (15 jurisdictions) are covered for Alaskan
Native and/or American Indian languages, which generally do not require
written materials. These 15 jurisdictions have an average American
Indian voting age population of 27.7 percent, of whom 15.0 percent are
limited-English proficient. Only one out of the 63 respondents covered
for Alaskan Native or American Indian languages (1.6 percent) report
receiving voter requests for bilingual election materials.
Jurisdictions providing only oral language assistance also include: 9
jurisdictions covered for Spanish Heritage, with an average Hispanic
voting age population of 23.5 percent, of whom 37.2 percent are
limited-English proficient; and 1 Asian-American covered jurisdiction,
with an Asian voting age population of 7.6 percent, of whom 48.5
percent are limited-English proficient.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Figure E-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty-nine responding jurisdictions (19.4 percent) do not report
providing language assistance of any kind. Every covered language group
is affected by the lack of assistance in these 69 jurisdictions: 41 are
covered for Spanish Heritage, with an average Hispanic voting age
population of 18.8 percent, of whom 39.4 percent are limited-English
proficient; 19 are covered for Alaskan Native or American Indian
languages, with an average Alaskan Native or American Indian voting age
population of 17.4 percent, of whom 6.0 percent are limited-English
proficient; and 7 are covered for Asian-American languages, with an
average Asian voting age population of 13.8 percent, of whom 40.7
percent are limited-English proficient.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Figure E-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The failure of many jurisdictions to provide language assistance in
the covered languages is attributable to the misperception of election
officials about the need for assistance. The 271 respondents estimate
that an average of 5.5 percent of their jurisdiction's voters requires
oral language assistance in the covered language. However, according to
the 2000 Census, the average number of limited-English proficient
persons of voting age in these jurisdictions is actually double that
number, or 10.9 percent. This divergence between perception and reality
is the same regardless of how much language assistance the jurisdiction
provides, if any.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Figure E-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than half of the 326 respondents report providing assistance
for telephone inquiries from voters in all of the covered languages:
39.0 percent (127 jurisdictions) provide assistance in all covered
languages; 26.4 percent (86 jurisdictions) in some covered languages;
and 34.7 percent (113 jurisdictions) in none of the covered
languages.\34\ Jurisdictions with a higher percentage of limited-
English proficient voters are more likely to provide telephone
assistance in the covered languages. They incur minimal costs for doing
so. Of the 116 jurisdictions providing telephonic language assistance
that reported their costs, the average cost is only .6 percent of total
election expenses.\35\ Seventy-four percent (86 jurisdictions) report
incurring no costs at all. Many jurisdictions report that their low
costs are attributed to their use of full-time election workers or
volunteers who are fluent in the covered languages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Figure E-17.
\35\ The average cost was calculated from the 95 jurisdictions
submitting complete cost data that responded to this question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, 57.1 percent (192 jurisdictions) of the 336
responding jurisdictions report that they do not have at least one
full-time worker fluent in the covered language.\36\ There is a strong
positive relationship between the percentage of limited-English
proficient voters and whether they employ bilingual full-time workers
in the covered languages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Figure E-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even fewer jurisdictions report that they use bilingual
coordinators. Bilingual coordinators act as a liaison between election
officials and language minority groups, and are routinely required in
consent decrees and judicial remedies for Section 203 violations.
However, of the 338 responding jurisdictions, only 38.2 percent (129
jurisdictions) report having a bilingual coordinator who speaks a
covered language.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Figure E-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Justice regulations require that covered
jurisdictions have ``direct contact with language minority group
organizations'' to ensure language assistance programs are
effective.\38\ However, most covered jurisdictions do not do so. Of the
322 responding jurisdictions, only 37.3 percent (120 jurisdictions)
report that they consult with community organizations or individuals
from the covered language groups about providing election assistance in
those languages.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 28 C.F.R. Sec. 55.18(e).
\39\ See Figure E-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, even where jurisdictions provide bilingual materials,
many acknowledge not doing so for all election materials. Our study
creates an index of eighteen types of written materials commonly used
in elections. Of 284 respondents, two-thirds (189 jurisdictions) report
that they translate more than half of all election materials.\40\ The
jurisdiction's population has no relationship to whether bilingual
materials are provided. Several jurisdictions separately acknowledge
not translating election materials they are required to provide in the
covered language, including candidate qualifying forms, election
results, voter instructions, and even ballots. Some report that they
will do so in the future. Other jurisdictions report they will not
provide bilingual materials because of cost, the failure of vendors to
offer translation services, technological issues, or the use of
bilingual poll workers to translate materials for voters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Figure E-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most covered jurisdictions acknowledge that they do not provide
oral language assistance at all stages of the election process. Our
study creates an index of fourteen types of common election activities.
Of the 328 respondents, only 32.9 percent (108 jurisdictions) report
that they provide language assistance for more than half of all
election activities.\41\ Jurisdictions that translate more than half of
all election materials are more likely to provide oral language
assistance for election activities than those translating less than
half of all election materials. The absence of oral language assistance
is inconsistent with federal guidelines, which provide that Section 203
``should be broadly construed to apply to all stages of the electoral
process, from voter registration through activities related to
conducting elections, including for example the issuance . . . of
notifications, announcements, or other informational materials
concerning the opportunity to register . . . the time, places and
subject matters of elections, and the absentee voting process.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Figure E-23.
\42\ 28 C.F.R. Sec. 55.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where oral language assistance is provided, it is impaired by the
failure of most jurisdictions to ensure that bilingual election workers
actually are fluent in the covered languages. Nearly two-thirds (210
jurisdictions) of the 324 responding jurisdictions do not require any
confirmation of the language abilities of part-time poll workers.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Figure E-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding jurisdictions generally provide regular training for
poll workers. However, two-thirds of the 328 respondents (217
jurisdictions) reported that their poll worker training does not
include information on the languages covered in the jurisdiction. This
number may be due to the lack of information included about language
assistance in instructional videos, which are used by 63.8 percent (208
jurisdictions) of all respondents.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Figure E-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll worker training on voter assistance does not necessarily
include accurate training on federal requirements. Section 208 of the
Act, which applies nationwide, provides that ``[a]ny 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,'' except for the voter's employer or union representative. Only
10.3 percent (27 jurisdictions) of the 263 respondents reported voter
assistance practices that are at least as protective as Section 208:
1.9 percent (five jurisdictions) correctly stated the federal standard;
and 8.4 percent (22 jurisdictions) permit voters to receive assistance
from their person of choice, even if it falls into one of the two
exceptions in Section 208. These voter assistance practices often are
the result of jurisdictions complying with state laws that are more
restrictive than Section 208 allows.
Responding jurisdictions are candid in reporting their election
practices. Their responses highlight the many challenges they face in
removing language barriers in elections to voters. Some jurisdictions
have done a commendable job in responding to these challenges.
Nevertheless, other jurisdictions still have a long way to go.
Only twelve jurisdictions express opinions that elections should be
conducted entirely in English. For example, one respondent notes, ``I
do not think that it is our responsibility to provide different
languages. I think everything should be in English only! That is their
responsibility (voter). Go to Mexico or other countries you have to
learn their language. You come here and we have to learn theirs. . .
.'' \45\ A few others criticize enforcement efforts by the Department
of Justice.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Respondent 558.
\46\ Respondents 311, 402, 550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, a majority of jurisdictions reject these views. One
respondent describes language assistance as ``common sense.'' \47\
Others emphasize its ``inclusivity'' \48\ and tendency to make ``voters
feel comfortable coming to the polls knowing there is help there if
needed.'' \49\ One jurisdiction observes that ``language assistance is
extremely important in ensuring the integrity of the U.S. Election
process'' and the legitimacy of government outcomes.\50\ Another
respondent explains, ``for the longest time I thought that if you live
in the USA, you should learn English. It is very difficult to help
someone who doesn't speak the language. My husband hunts in Mexico and
the few times I went with him I felt helpless because I didn't
understand Spanish. It is very overwhelming when you need assistance
and can't get it because of the language barrier.'' \51\ These concerns
cause some jurisdictions to suggest that Congress should ``broaden the
requirements.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Respondent 652.
\48\ Respondent 206.
\49\ Respondent 949.
\50\ Respondent 537.
\51\ Respondent 773.
\52\ Respondent 616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many jurisdictions specifically commend the Justice Department's
enforcement efforts. Some ask the federal government to ``[h]elp us
come up with the means of getting rid of the `this is America, English
only' attitude of many people out there, both voters and election board
workers.'' \53\ Others request that the Department do even more to
``enforce existing rules.'' \54\ One jurisdiction requests that voter
assistance requirements also ``should be enhanced to let citizens with
limited English skills to bring friend or family to help or they should
be encouraged to vote absentee.'' \55\ As another respondent observes,
``the federal government has done a lot to provide minority language
assistance.'' \56\ Much remains to be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Respondent 839.
\54\ Respondent 276.
\55\ Respondent 402.
\56\ Respondent 434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our study's findings highlight the continuing need for language
assistance. State and local election officials agree. An overwhelming
majority of the 254 responding jurisdictions, 71.3 percent (181
jurisdictions) think that the federal language assistance provisions
should remain in effect for public elections.\57\ For these reasons, I
recommend in the strongest terms that the temporary provisions of the
Voting Rights Act, including Sections 4, 6, 8, and 203, be
reauthorized. Thank you very much for your attention. I will welcome
the opportunity to answer any questions you may have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Figures E-25 through E-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Cartagena, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JUAN CARTAGENA, GENERAL COUNSEL, COMMUNITY SERVICE
SOCIETY
Mr. Cartagena. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting
me here to share our observations from the Community Service
Society on the reauthorization of certain provisions of the
Voting Rights Act.
My name is Juan Cartagena. I am general counsel to the CSS
and a voting rights attorney since 1981, as soon as I came out
of school, that is. And I have been using the Voting Rights Act
and its promises of equal opportunity and full political access
to serve underserved communities in a number of States and
neighborhoods, especially racial and language minorities.
CSS is an independent organization in New York City that
uses research, advocacy, volunteerism, and direct service to
address issues of poverty and strengthen community life for
all. I direct a small public interest litigation unit that
serves to supplement its advocacy work. And since 1989, CSS has
been using the Voting Rights Act and other legal means to
ensure full and fair representation of the city's poorest
neighborhoods.
My focus of my testimony that you have, I hope, in your
hands, and also of my remarks today, is essentially on the
concerns of the Latino communities in New York City, with
particular emphasis on the voting rights of Puerto Rican
citizens, but inasmuch as I've done quite a bit of work in
litigation while in New Jersey, some of my testimony is related
to that State as well.
CSS's position in this issue is pretty clear. We have many,
many years of doing street registration in poor communities,
and of mounting legal challenges to institutional barriers to
control political participation. And we strongly support
bilingual voting assistance provisions that are a valid and
efficient use and policy that promotes democracy. And there are
numerous good reasons why the bilingual assistance provision
203 allow language minority citizens an equal opportunity to
participate in the process, I will summarize some of them right
now for you.
In our view, section 203 is still viable and necessary in
2005 because the full participation of Latino-language minority
citizens has yet to be achieved. Equally important, we have
needed aggressive enforcement activity from both the Department
of Justice and private attorneys general in both States, New
York and New Jersey. As a result, in our opinion, the Latino
community has yet to reap the full benefits that Congress
promised them 15 years ago in the recent amendment and even
back further.
About 75 percent of Latinos in this country speak a
language other than English at home. That is much higher than
the national average of 18 percent. About 41 percent of Latinos
in this country speak English less than very well, which is a
measure used by the Census Bureau to certify 203 jurisdictions.
And about 23 percent, almost a quarter, do not speak English at
all. In New York City, the portion of individuals who are
Latino who do not speak English very well is even higher, 51
percent.
The issues of turnout in the Latino community were also of
concern in the enactment of the Voting Rights provisions or the
bilingual assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. And
here I differ with my panelist Mr. McAlpin that the concerns
regarding the bilingual assistance provisions occurred in `75.
They occurred as early as 1965, with the enactment of 4(e) that
specifically was delegated to the benefit of the Puerto Rican
community. In that sense, turnout issues are still an issue;
that is, the bilingual assistance provisions were also passed
by Congress to address issues of lack of turnout. And today,
recent studies regarding the 2004 election by the Pew Hispanic
Center demonstrate that 47 percent of eligible Latinos have
turned out to vote in the 2004 election, compared to about 67
percent for Whites and about 60 percent for Blacks.
When you look, Mr. Chairman, at the number of Latino
elected officials in this country, it is less than 1\1/2\
percent of all the officeholders in this country, about 493,000
somewhat offices, and yet Latinos only hold less than 1\1/1\
percent of those offices. Enforcement mechanisms, therefore,
have been very important.
In New York, observers from the Justice Department for
section 203 compliance have been issued as recently as 2004,
and I should say as recently as 2 days ago at the elections in
New York City. In Passaic County alone, 450 observers were
deployed by the Department of Justice in a 5-year span for the
purpose of ensuring that bilingual assistance under 203 will be
complied with, for the purpose of also demonstrating that
Latino voters will not be intimidated against; that's 450 in 5
years.
203 is also important as--another reason for its
reenactment of 203, is also important with respect to the
voting rights of Puerto Rican citizens in this country.
I have set forth in my testimony a number of passages from
an opinion back in 1965, U.S. v. Monroe County. If you have a
chance to look at that opinion, gentlemen, you will recognize
that all the principles in that opinion are still true today.
Puerto Ricans are still subject to the full authority of the
territory. Puerto Ricans are still citizens of the United
States. Puerto Ricans still migrate back and forth with no
inhibition or obstacle whatsoever.
Spanish is spill a major feature in Puerto Rican life, both
in Puerto Rican and for Puerto Ricans in the United States.
About three-quarters of the island population speaks English
less than very well. About 40 percent speaks no English at all.
Puerto Ricans here in the United States have different
characteristics, but still about a quarter of those speak
English less than very well, and in New York and New Jersey
that proportion is slightly higher.
So while English is being spoken at much higher rates, we
still have a very large proportion of Puerto Ricans, back over
there on the island and over here, that are not yet mastering
English. They are close to now almost 3.7 million, according to
the census, Puerto Ricans in the United States, approaching 3.8
million on the island of Puerto Rico. Very soon, any day now,
there will be probably even slightly more.
So let me try to wrap up with the following points. Section
203 is very important because, in our opinion, it promotes good
government, responsive government, and government that actually
addresses issues with a formula that is self-maintaining. It
will change over time with demographic changes, coverage
changes.
The language characteristics of Latinos that I just talked
about I think warrant continued coverage. Lack of enforcement
and compliance warrant continued coverage. We also are in favor
of actually reducing the numerical thresholds from 10,000 to
7,500.
I would be happy to answer your questions if time permits.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cartagena follows:]
Prepared Statement of Juan Cartagena
Mr. Chabot. I want to thank all of the panel members for
their testimony here this morning.
The question I am going to ask has several parts to it, and
I am just going to go down the line and let each one of you
take it. I'm not sure if I'll have any time left when I'm done
because I'm encouraging Members to stick within their 5 minutes
because we only have the room until 10 o'clock because there is
another Committee coming here afterwards.
First of all, you've all indicated, I think, for the most
part, with some exceptions, that 203 is still needed. Number
one, are language minorities currently being discriminated
against in the election process? And shouldn't Americans be
encouraged to learn English? And shouldn't we be focusing on
resources on bettering our schools and our Nation's proficiency
in the English language? And how is this provision consistent
with the naturalization process in which individuals applying
for citizenship are required to learn and understand English?
And finally, is section 203 consistent with encouraging
assimilation, or, as some suggest, does the section divide or
balkanize our Nation?
And there's a lot in there, and you're invited to take any
parts that you feel comfortable with, within about a minute
each, unfortunately. So we will begin with you, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. As far as should citizens be
encouraged to learn English, I think we're not talking about
Alaskan Natives or Native Americans as naturalized citizens,
we're talking about them as the indigenous citizens of this
country. And in 1991 there was a study--in fact, right before
there was some--203 was taken up again in Congress, the study
said--Nations at Risk said that 9 percent of the people only
had limited English proficiency in the fifth grade in English.
If you think about that, that's only--you're talking 10 years
later, they're only in their early 20's. And in the
communities, particularly from the rural parts of Alaska that I
know best, English is the second language, and that elders
continue to speak in the language that they know best, and that
children continue to learn in that environment. Although the
children learn English in school, it doesn't mean that it
necessarily is their--and I think that the younger generations
will probably be more proficient in English. We still have a
huge sector of our population that is more proficient in their
own indigenous language, and so we need to accommodate that.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. McAlpin.
Mr. McAlpin. Mr. Chairman, I think what you said, does it
discriminate against other language minorities? Obviously to
have ballots in English discriminates against other languages,
I mean, that's self-evident, but I think the real issue is it
does not discriminate against anybody on the basis of race or
ethnicity or national origin, and that point I made in my
testimony.
Shouldn't we be encouraging people to learn English?
Absolutely. The census shows that an immigrant who speaks
English well earns on average 43 percent more than one who
doesn't speak it well. If they speak English very well, they
earn almost twice as much as someone who doesn't speak it well.
So it's clearly in the country's interest and it's in the
immigrants' interest to encourage them. It raises their job
skills and raises their taxpaying power, everything. It's a
win-win situation. We definitely should be encouraging that.
Naturalization, it's not consistent with naturalization.
Now I'm very much aware that we do have exceptions in our
naturalization laws for people that have been here for over 20
years, that are 50 years of age or more, but that's an enormous
concession to people to make that, and it does not follow that
because we give them that privilege, that we have to then also
go to the trouble of providing bilingual ballots. They have
alternatives that are very logical, common-sense and targeted.
Like I said, to bring an interpreter into the poll with them,
family member or whoever they want, they have that right; the
Justice Department has made that clear since 1982.
Does it divide our Nation? Yes. It takes us down a
pejorative path that we do not want to go. This country has had
a successful model since its founding, called the melting pot,
of assimilating people from every place on Earth to become
good, solid Americans and part of our community, and we want to
continue--to turn our back on that, which is what this starts
to do, it sends a very strong signal that we can be a Nation of
linguistically isolated colonies instead of one community
speaking one language and having that common bond. Very
important, as Barbara Jordan said, to promote policies that
ensure our civic unity, and that means our linguistic unity as
well.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Really I want to break down my answer in two parts; first
of all, to debunk this myth that somehow most of the
individuals who need language assistance are recent arrivals.
They're not. The 2000 census data shows that among Hispanics,
60 percent of all Hispanics in the United States were Native-
born Hispanics. One hundred percent of Puerto Ricans, of
course, are Native-born, as well as all Alaskan Natives and
Native Americans.
So that being aside, it's clear just based upon that
evidence alone that this is not just--nor should it be--some
sort of division between let's treat the naturalized citizens
differently than the folks who were Native-born. We need to
have one standard, it should apply, and that standard should be
let's make the election system open and accessible to every
citizen who needs it, regardless of their language abilities.
Among Latinos, according to the 2000 census, 40.6 percent
of all Latinos in the United States speak English less than
very well. And among Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, that
number is 11.1 percent of all Alaskan Natives and Native
Americans.
Mr. Chabot. I hate to cut you off here, but I'm trying to
be fair to all my colleagues here. So thank you very much.
Mr. Cartagena.
Mr. Cartagena. Mr. Chairman, I think the information that I
provided in my testimony with respect to compliance with 203
and the issues of Federal observers and litigation promoted by
the Department of Justice and other attorneys demonstrate that
there still is a problem of discrimination against language-
minority citizens in this country.
With respect to your other questions regarding how do you
square 203 with naturalization and whether or not it's
encouraging assimilation, I don't think anyone is standing
before any of you, sir, gentlemen, and demanding that--or
asserting that language-minority citizens do not want to learn
English; they all do. The problem is there's not enough
resources for them to learn English. I cite a New York Times
article in my testimony that demonstrates that there are no
places for adults to learn English in virtually all of Queens
County.
The point here, sir, is that we're talking about the right
to vote, one of the most cherished rights in our democracy. And
to condition that right to vote on complete fluency in English,
enough to try to even understand ballot initiates and
referenda--which is not easy to do even in the English
language, I would submit--I think is a mistake. The right to
vote is too important to take it away from individual citizens
who are simply trying to participate in the political process.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Ranking
Member of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers is
recognized.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This morning it seems like deja vu. I can't--I almost can't
believe that I am listening to a debate about whether
immigrants or recent immigrants need assistance at the polls.
It's like we've just thrown away 30 years of constitutional
voting rights history and opened this up as a brand new
subject.
And to quote Barbara Jordan, Mr. McAlpin--I don't know if
you've met or know Barbara Jordan, she was a member of this
Committee. And for you to take that phrase and suggest or imply
that it supports your position is something that I would like
to discuss with you for the rest of the year.
But this is a stunning discussion here. We've been through
the courts on this. The law is settled on it. Why we're going
through all of this may be because of H.R. 997, an English-only
bill, which my Chairman is or was a co-sponsor of, Mr. Chabot,
and I don't know what it is we're doing here.
Immigrants are discriminated, exploited, oppressed,
economically subjugated. Their rights are violated outside of
voting. Here is a subservient labor workforce that is
incredibly discriminated against, and we meet here to discuss
constitutional niceties about whether or not they ought to--
they need any help with English language in voting. Of course
they do.
Now, Michigan is covered--is caught by this provision in
Allegan County, and we've checked with all the Mexican-American
Legal Defense and the National Association of Latino Elected
Officials, NALEO, and compliance seems to be good and going on.
But let me yield to Mr. Tucker to help me stabilize my
presence here this morning in the kind of discussion that we're
having. I would like you to comment on my observations, please.
Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
I want to point out again that I think everything that the
gentleman from Michigan said is absolutely true, that there
really should not be some sort of bifurcation or have different
gradations of citizenship. We really should be far beyond that.
And the fact of the matter is that I'm someone who has worked
both as someone who has been a trial attorney at Justice
enforcing the provisions, as well as someone who's worked with
election officials to come into compliance. Most elections
officials want to do this. Most elections officials want to do
the right thing, which is to include these folks.
To the extent that there's a discussion that somehow this
is going to balkanize the country, exactly the opposite is
true. The fact of the matter, as this Committee has recognized,
as well as the House and Senate recognized when it previously
considered this provision, most individuals who are immigrating
to the United States learn English well enough within about 10
years after arrival. This is a way to integrate them into the
system, this is a way to make them full Americans. And to be
talking about in 2005 that we're going to somehow treat
naturalized citizens in a different manner than folks who
happen to be Native-born is somewhat astonishing. I mean,
that's an argument that was made repeatedly in the 19th
century, and it's really time that we should move beyond that.
The fact of the matter is assistance does make a difference,
having people there who could speak their language does make a
difference.
The voter assistance provisions of section 208 do not cure
this problem. The fact of the matter is our studies show that
90 percent of the jurisdictions--and these are election
officials--are getting 208 wrong. And this is exactly
consistent with what is frequently reported in the newspaper,
where you have people who will bring their mother with them,
their father, their daughter, their son to give them
assistance, and they're turned away, they're not allowed to go
into the voting both. So for those reasons I believe the
gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right, and 203 is
necessary.
Mr. Conyers. I assume, Mr. Cartagena, Esquire, that you're
in general agreement with the comments of myself and your
fellow witness?
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time is expired. Please answer
the question.
Mr. Cartagena. Yes, I am, definitely.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman from Iowa Mr. King is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I sit here and I see
significant disagreement with a lot of the philosophy that I've
heard here with the panel, and also I think the tone I hear
from the questioning. And I think when I look back on this
section 203, as I understand it, it's more than a generation
old, and in a generation you can do a lot of things.
I look back on Lowell Webster, writing the American English
dictionary for the express purpose of standardizing the
spelling, the pronunciation and the meaning of the English
language because it was just English that was being
colloquialized in the Thirteen Original Colonies. When he
traveled, he realized there were enclaves--just language
enclaves, not ethnic enclaves, but just language enclaves being
established in the original Thirteen Colonies, and he was
afraid the United States of America would break apart because
we couldn't communicate with each other to the level that we
would have an overall binding common communications currency.
And so he wrote the English language dictionary.
It was his dream to make it a constitutional amendment, and
I wish he had gotten that done. In fact, I wish we had never
seen section 203 because in this generation we might have
gotten away from all these language barriers, these language
enclaves that we seem to be promoting here instead of seeking
to diminish the promotion of assimilation. You need to learn
English if you want to succeed and participate successfully in
this society, and we're sending the opposite message by this
policy.
My father grew up in a German-speaking household. He went
to kindergarten the first day speaking only German, and he
walked into the house that day from that first day, and he said
hello to his mother in German, and she turned to him and
pointed her finger at him and said, son, speaking German in
this household is for you from now forbidden. I came here to
become an American; I need you to go to school and learn
English and bring it home and teach it to me. And that's how
she learned it. And they were proud to be Americans. And she
sent four sons back to Germany to fight in World War II and one
to the South Pacific. And so, you know, that's the background
that I bring to this.
And I think we're working in the wrong direction by
promoting ethnic--or I'll say language enclaves. Ethnicity is
another choice and another subject matter, but we need to pull
this together. When will we ever get to the point where we can
get rid of 203? By the testimony that I've heard--and I guess
I'll turn the question to Mr. Tucker, and what would be your
goals to--what do you think America is going to look like in a
generation from now, or two or three, more language enclaves or
less, if we keep promoting the language dependency?
Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. King. I would respectfully
disagree with the gentleman from Iowa with respect to referring
to the language enclaves. It really isn't. This is literally
the melting pot of American Society. It's truly a wonderful
thing.
I have to say, one of the shining moments that I have seen
was what sort of impact this has on recent arrivals who do not
speak English well enough to participate. And bear in mind that
many of the individuals who do not speak English well enough,
it's not because they don't want to, in many instances they
simply are not capable of learning English. Many of the
individuals, a large percentage who are limited in English
proficiency in this country, are individuals over the age of
60. That's particularly true on the Navajo Reservation,
throughout Indian country, among a large number of Latinos. And
that, again, is specifically why in 1984, when the GAO
commissioned the Southwest Voter Education Project to do a
study, they found that the majority of the individuals who
needed assistance were Native-born Americans that simply had
not gotten the educational opportunities that they needed----
Mr. King. Mr. Tucker, the Hispanics that come across from
our southern border and arrive here, what is their indigenous
language?
Mr. Tucker. It would be Spanish.
Mr. King. It would.
Mr. Tucker. Yes.
Mr. King. And what did their ancestors learn?
Mr. Tucker. Presumably Spanish.
Mr. King. What did they speak before that?
Mr. Tucker. I don't know. I----
Mr. King. Their Native American language that you're
addressing. And they adapted Spanish quickly, and they learned
it in the missionaries. In fact, it became the lingua franca
that bonded them together. They had the ability to learn
Spanish a few centuries ago, and I would think that they would
have the ability to learn English today.
Can I turn to Mr. McAlpin for a comment, please?
Mr. McAlpin. Yeah. First of all, thank you, Mr. King, I
appreciate--and I wanted to reiterate, we are in favor of every
citizen having the right to vote. And with all due respect to
the gentleman from Michigan, sir, I did have the privilege of
meeting Barbara Jordan, I did have the privilege of testifying
before her commission, and I have enormous respect for her. And
I think her words speak for themselves. And I think that she
would be very much, really--I wish she were here to speak for
herself. I think she would be encouraging that we go down the
path of unifying people. And what we are saying here is we
should not treat naturalized citizens differently from American
citizens, we should treat people the same.
Now, I also want to just say that everybody has the right
to get language assistance in the polls. They can bring an
interpreter with them. There is nothing to prevent local
election districts from hiring and providing interpreters.
There is nothing to prevent groups and organizations like Mr.
Cartagena's from providing volunteer interpreters and something
like that. There are reasonable targeted opportunities for
people who cannot speak English to be able to get assistance to
be able to cast an informed ballot.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time is expired.
I hate to cut you off there, but the gentleman from
Virginia Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me follow up on that line of questioning, Mr. McAlpin.
Apparently you're not offended when election officials are
courteous and helpful and helping voters get through the
registration and voting process; is that right? You're not
offended by that?
Mr. McAlpin. I most certainly am not. Sometimes when I vote
early in the morning, they don't seem to be in the best of
moods, sir.
Mr. Scott. Do you know what a blank paper ballot is?
Mr. McAlpin. A blank paper ballot is a ballot that has a
blank on it for----
Mr. Scott. The blank ballot voter registration form.
Mr. McAlpin. Yes, I do.
Mr. Scott. You know what it is?
Mr. McAlpin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. If you have a form that asks the questions, that
would be helpful. You don't like the blank paper voter
registration form, do you?
Mr. McAlpin. I'm not sure I understand your question, sir.
Mr. Scott. Would you support a blank paper voter
registration form where you're given a blank piece of paper,
and you have to fill out all the information; if you leave it
out----
Mr. McAlpin. There is no information printed on it in any
way?
Mr. Scott. That's right. They used to have those. And it's
up to the voter, the person trying to register, to put down all
the information. And if you leave something out, like you
forgot to answer whether you have been convicted of a felony,
leave anything out, you leave, they just don't register your
vote because you just didn't provide all the information.
Do you support the blank paper voter registration?
Mr. McAlpin. I don't think so.
Mr. Scott. Do you support literacy tests?
Mr. McAlpin. No. Certainly if they're not--if they're used
in a discriminatory manner, absolutely not.
Mr. Scott. Do you support literacy tests?
Mr. McAlpin. No, I do not. But I will say this, that a
ballot in any language requires literacy.
Mr. Scott. Should bilingual assistance--I think you said
bilingual assistance should be allowed.
Mr. McAlpin. It is allowed under the law right now, it is
allowed.
Mr. Scott. If it's provided, is that a good thing or a bad
thing?
Mr. McAlpin. It is a good thing for people that cannot read
English well enough to understand a ballot, to allow them to
have--they can bring a volunteer, a member, family member, a
friend, clergyman, anybody else to help them into the poll with
them----
Mr. Scott. And if a substantial number of people actually
need assistance, and that assistance is denied, and large
groups of constituents, of potential voters in the area can't
get through the process, that assistance is denied, is that a
good thing or a bad thing if the leaders in the community deny
access to balloting by denying assistance to that group of
people who might not vote for them? Is that denial and
withholding of assistance a good thing or a bad thing?
Mr. McAlpin. It's neither a good thing or a bad thing, it's
an illegal thing.
Mr. Scott. Illegal now, but that's what we're talking
about. Now, you said----
Mr. McAlpin. No, no, sir. With all respect, sir, we're
talking about printing ballots in certain other languages and
voter information. We're not talking about providing assistance
to people who cannot read a ballot in English.
Mr. Scott. Well, my response to that is you're talking
semantics.
Let me go to Barbara Jordan's questions. Such policies
should help people learn to speak, read and write English
effectively. Suppose a group wants to change the policy; the
school board will not provide English as a second language
assistance; and a group of people, a majority of the people, if
they can ever vote, could change the policy. Is it a good thing
or a bad thing that we ought to help the people register to
vote so they can change the policy so they can help to speak,
read and write English effectively?
Mr. McAlpin. Just two comments, sir. We are all in favor
of--like I said, we believe that every qualified voter should
be able to vote without exception. And secondly, we certainly
support increased funding----
Mr. Scott. Well, you recognize--since my time is ending,
you recognize, of course, that there would be a perverse
incentive for the elected officials in the area to do
everything they can to make sure that certain parts of the
district don't vote because they might vote them out of office
and change some policies. And if you supply everybody all the
assistance they need to get registered and cast an effective
vote, some of those people might just get voted out of office;
isn't that right?
Mr. McAlpin. Well, if they are using their power as elected
officials to prevent people from voting, they should be voted
out of office, sir.
Mr. Scott. Blank paper registration form doesn't prevent
anybody from voting.
Mr. Tucker, is it helpful to change the policies--if
people--if everybody can register and vote?
Mr. Tucker. I would say no, and the reason is very simple.
Mr. Scott. No what?
Mr. Tucker. No, the policy should remain in effect, it
should not be changed.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Scott. Could I have 30 seconds to finish the question?
Mr. Chabot. Thirty seconds.
Mr. Scott. The policy I'm talking about is a policy if a
community doesn't supply English as a second language
assistance, and people want to change that policy so they can
get more language assistance, the way you do that is through
the political process. Now, if you can't vote, you can't change
the process.
Now, isn't it helpful to have everybody voting so that
everybody can have an equal voice in what the policy ought to
be?
Mr. Tucker. It absolutely is, Mr. Scott. I would also note
that on each occasion when Congress has considered the
bilingual election provisions, they've specifically noted that
this should not a be a punitive measure where the voters are
held accountable for the lack of resources in their
communities, whether it's ESL or denial of educational
opportunities in the public school system.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentleman from Arizona Mr. Franks is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, folks,
for being here.
Mr. Cartagena, in hearing your testimony, I understand that
it is your belief that we should have ballots printed in
languages that reflect the local need as much as possible. And
I guess I am sincerely wondering, where do we make the decision
that ballots should be printed in a particular language? How do
we make that decision in an unbiased manner? In other words, if
we're in an area where there is a large Hispanic population or
a large German population, where do we make a distinction?
Mr. Cartagena. Well, currently 203 makes that distinction
for us. 203 has a numerical threshold and a number of other
indicators that are objectively identifiable. The Census Bureau
must certify that at least 5 percent of the current
jurisdiction is limited English-proficient language-minority
citizens, or 10,000 people, whatever is less.
Also, the Census determines other issues regarding
education attainment. When those things happen in combination,
then the Federal policy is to provide assistance in a language
other than English.
Mr. Franks. Well, Mr. Cartagena, I know that you know that
the goal there, of course, is to help those who cannot
understand the ballot; but it occurs to me that that's an
arbitrary decision, because there is someone in the community
that is not going to be covered under that situation. That's
just an invariable reality. My wife came here, emigrated from
the Philippines, and she now speaks four languages. When she
came to the United States, in English she knew yes, no, and
what's your name. She consistently beats me at the Word Power
games now, so it's kind of embarrassing. But the reality is
that her family had great wisdom in making sure that she could
understand the common language in this country so that she
could do well.
There is an old Iroquois quote that the secret to the
universe is in the true naming of things, and that can't exist
unless there is some common language that everyone understands.
And if we're going to make an arbitrary Federal decision to
say, well, in this area we're going to print the ballot in two
languages, this area three languages, no matter what we do, we
will leave some group of people that don't understand those
languages out, unless we print the ballot in all known
languages on the Earth, which is impractical and impossible.
And it just occurs to me that no matter how far down this
road we go, that if we don't somehow invite and encourage a
strong commitment on all the part of our citizens to a common
language, that we do them a disservice in the long run. And, of
course, I say that as someone, you know, that is married to a
lady that speaks three more languages than I do, and again,
that's embarrassing. But the reality is that if we're not
careful, where do we stop here?
I understand the very nature of the principle of creating
ballots in many languages seems to speak against doing that
because we can't possibly print it in enough languages. So I
just, Mr. Chairman, express that for the record, and appreciate
the panelists for speaking to the issues.
Mr. Cartagena. If I may just respond, Congressman. A
wonderful thing when you talk about language, everyone has a
personal story to say. And I appreciate your comments, and I
appreciate Congressman King's comments about his family. Let me
tell you very briefly, then, in my family I learned English
when my mother migrated from Puerto Rico to the United States
in the `50's. When she died, she had just been retired only
about several--a handful of years, never earned more than
$11,000 a year, worked in a sewing machine factory, knew barely
enough English to get her way from her house to her job. She is
from Puerto Rico, sir.
And the issues that were raised by Mr. King and yourself
seem to imply that Puerto Ricans, as one subset of the Latino
community, do not want to learn English and insist on keeping
Spanish. And the kind of discussion that we all have separates
the reality that for Puerto Ricans in this country and for
Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, the issues are pretty clear with
respect to----
Mr. Franks. Let me just respond to that because I
understand what you're saying----
Mr. Cartagena. Service in our military with no questions
asked.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time here just
briefly. My time is almost gone.
I appreciate your thought there. That's not my heart at
all. The bottom line is, though, that if the language is
Spanish--why not Ilocano? Why not Tagalog? That leaves my wife
out and would have left her out in that situation. And I just
am concerned that if we don't recognize the reality, we always
leave someone out in that situation, and the only ultimate hope
for everyone is to bring everybody together in a language we
all understand.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time is expired. We have to
give up this room when the big hand is on the 10. The
gentlelady from Texas--on the 12, rather. The gentlelady from
Texas Ms. Jackson Lee has the balance of the time, which I
think is about 2\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman--and I will move very
quickly--I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for
allowing me to join this discussion. I look forward to being
with you next week.
Let me just quickly say I represent the 18th Congressional
District, had the privilege of having Barbara Jordan as the
maidenholder of this seat, and also the privilege of her
support as I ran, and interacting with her principles and
values.
Might I just say that utilizing the quote that Mr. McAlpin
has used, let me just say that since Congresswoman Jordan was
responsible for the language provision that included at that
time Hispanics under the Voter Rights Act of 1965, I would
venture to say that the interpretation of her remarks would be
such that she would not use the hammer of non-English to deny a
birthright of the right to vote.
And I would work with Mr. McAlpin continuously to expand
English and provide educational resources and make sure our
schools are credible and that we don't have second- and third-
rate schools. But how that tracks with the voting right is a
question.
So Mr. Tucker, here is my question, because we have to
determine whether we want to continue this provision and
assistance, and that bears on the question of unduly burdensome
in terms of the constitutional standard. Would this continuance
be unduly burdensome on local jurisdictions, and in terms of
cost and feasibility, as you would juxtapose it against the
birthright, the constitutional right, the desires of making
sure that all Americans and all who are eligible to vote can
vote?
Mr. Tucker. No, it would not. As the Supreme Court has
recognized for over 100 years, voting is a fundamental right.
It's not a fundamental right for some groups and not for
others, it's a fundamental right for all Americans. It is not
unduly burdensome.
I do want to point out that it's not just our study that
has shown that it's not unduly burdensome, but the two GAO
studies--which I again would commend to the Committee's
attention--show the same thing.
The other point I want to make is that many of the costs
that can be associated with providing language assistance can
be limited significantly through effective targeting. Congress
recognized that targeting should be a key component of it to
make sure that those folks who need assistance receive it.
DOJ's guidelines call for the same thing. And jurisdictions
that effectively target, do it, provide assistance
significantly.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have
that burden to do that.
Mr. Chabot. The Ranking Member Mr. Nadler is recognized for
the purpose of making a brief statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me apologize. This hearing was very
quickly rescheduled, and I had a previous commitment I couldn't
get out of until now.
Let me just say--I will submit questions for the record,
but I want to say for the record also that I regard the
bilingual requirements of section 203 as of extreme importance,
as not burdening anyone. And when you think of the fact not
only--when you think of the fact that we want to increase
people's participation in democratic, or a small D, government,
and that there are plenty of people in this country who are
citizens for whom English is not their first language, many of
whom are born in the United States and Puerto Rico who don't
have to learn English to become a citizen, this is little
enough to ask. It has been a great service that we've had this
requirement. It has increased democratic participation, and we
should not even think of relaxing it in any way.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman.
I thank the witness panel and all the Members for being
here today. We do have one hearing next week--one hearing on
the Voting Rights Act next week.
If there is no further business to come before the
Committee, we are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:02 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution
Welcome and thank you everyone for being here. This is the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and the eighth in a series of hearings
this Committee is holding examining the impact and effectiveness of the
Voting Rights Act over the last twenty-five years. Today this Committee
will continue its focus on Section 203, the provision authorizing
bilingual language assistance to American citizens who are members of
covered language minority groups and who have limited-English
proficiency. Section 203 is set to expire in 2007, unless reauthorized.
I would like to welcome our witnesses here today and look forward
to their testimony.
I'll be brief this afternoon. Section 203 was enacted in 1975 in
response to a history of unequal educational opportunities experienced
by citizens whose dominate language is not English. Section 203
responds to this disparity by requiring designated jurisdictions to
provide bilingual election assistance, including notices, instructions,
information, and ballots, to citizens who are members of a designated
language minority group and who have limited-English proficiency.
As we heard yesterday, Section 203 has been an effective tool in
assisting citizens who are members of a covered language minority group
to participate in one of the most fundamental element of our system of
democracy. However, we also heard testimony yesterday that Section 203
diminishes the importance of the English language in our nation, and
imposes unnecessary costs on our electoral system.
These are all important factors that the Committee must consider as
we continue to examine the VRA. I look forward to continuing this
discussion and hearing from our witnesses.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution
When Congress passed the Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act in
1975, we recognized that through the use of various practices and
procedures, citizens of language minorities had been effectively
excluded from participation in the electoral process. Among other
factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group
citizens was directly related to the unequal educational opportunities
afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting
participation.
We then determined that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution,
it was necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting
discriminatory voting practices, and by prescribing other remedial
devices. Thus we saw a direct connection between access to the ballot
box and the ability to achieve equal educational and economic
opportunity. Covered language minorities included: American Indians,
Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Spanish-heritage citizens--the
groups that Congress found to have faced barriers in the political
process.
The legal requirements of Section 203 are straightforward: all
election information that is available in English must also be
available in the minority language so that all citizens will have an
effective opportunity to register, learn the details of the elections,
and cast a free and effective ballot. Sections 203, in combination with
Section 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, have been tremendously
successful in opening the franchise to citizens who are not native
English language speakers.
Some witnesses have challenged the constitutionality of Section 203
and even questioned the need for the provision. While I approach these
hearings with an open mind, let me say at the outset, I fully support
bilingual election assistance. In a growing multi-cultural society it
only makes sense that we support and require the assistance necessary
to allow every citizen to cast an effective ballot.
I believe that it is dangerous to assume that past historical
discrimination faced by language minorities has suddenly faded away
with the passing of the millennium. If anything, the growth of our
immigrant population has exacerbated existing patterns of
discrimination. We see this in everything from patterns of hate
violence to the rise of English-only movements which have not quite
shaken their links to the past prejudices.
As we move forward, I hope that our witnesses will address the
continuing challenges faced by language minorities in gaining equal
access to the ballot box, with a particular focus on litigation and
patterns of discrimination. Equally important, I hope that they
highlight the record of compliance by jurisdictions and the fact that
the provision is not burdensome. At the end of this process, this
Committee wants no question as to the need and viability of Section
203.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary
Prepared Statement of Chris Norby, Supervisor, Fourth District,
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Prepared Statement of Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)
Educational Fund
Voting Rights Cases Brought on Behalf of American Indians and/or
Interpreting the Voting Rights Act re: Indian Interests. From Jennifer
Robinson, Daniel McCool, and Susan Olson: Native Vote: American
Indians, the Voting Rights Act, and the Right to Vote. Forthcoming.
Cambridge University Press, 2006