[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NO TO BILINGUAL BALLOTS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOBY ROTH

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 23, 1996

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, today this body scored an important victory in 
the battle to keep America one Nation, one people. This afternoon, the 
House Judiciary Committee passed legislation that repeals the Federal 
mandate for bilingual voting ballots.
  In the spirit of so-called ``multiculturalism'', the Federal 
Government has mandated since 1965 that voting ballots and materials be 
printed in dozens of languages other than English.
  Today, some 375 voting districts across the country are required to 
print ballots in foreign languages. In a classic example of an unfunded 
Federal mandate, politicians in Washington force States and localities 
to provide multilingual ballots without providing any money to pay for 
them.
  The legislation that created this mandate is the Voting Rights Act of 
1965. Under this law, counties must provide multilingual voting 
information and ballots in the language of any minority group with more 
than 10,000 eligible voters in the county.
  In theory, these services should not be needed at all. Voting rights 
are extended to citizens of this country, and one needs to demonstrate 
some fluency in English to become a U.S. citizen. In practice, this 
requirement for citizenship is often unenforced, but that doesn't 
change the facts: by law, English is a requirement for citizenship in 
this country. We should not be providing Government services in direct 
contradiction with the spirit, if not the letter, of this requirement.
  Moreover, these services are expensive and unnecessary. It might 
surprise supporters of multilingual ballots to know that very few 
people actually request such special treatment. By and large, 
multilingual ballots are rarely requested and even less often used, 
even when they are provided. That is what makes their costs to the 
local taxpayers all the more shocking.
  Election officials in Alameda County, CA told me recently that they 
spent almost $100,000 to produce ballots in Spanish and Chinese for the 
entire county, yet only 900 were ultimately requested. We can all do 
the math: The taxpayers of Alameda county spent over $100 for every 
multilingual ballot that was actually used in their June 1994 election.
  This appears to be a trend. The last election in Los Angeles saw 
ballots printed in 6 languages other than English, among them Spanish, 
Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Korean. It cost the city 
government over $125,000 to prepare the materials, and yet only 927 
ballots were used. Los Angeles spent over $135 for each voter the city 
helped.
  Even small communities are not immune. Long Beach spent a relatively 
modest $6,200 preparing multilingual materials for its eligible voters. 
When only 22 requests came in, the township had spent over $280 per 
multilingual voter. As a frustrated election official told me recently, 
``this is a lot of money to help a few people.'' That official could 
not be more right.
  These ballots have other, more serious costs associated with them. 
Providing these special services creates the fiction that newcomers to 
this country can enjoy the full benefits of citizenship without 
learning the language of the land--English. We know this is not true. 
How can a citizen cast an informed ballot in a foreign language when 
most candidate platforms, stump speeches, and media coverage are in 
English? Exercising one's rights of citizenship involves more than just 
casting a vote; it means making a thoughtful decision regarding an 
issue or a candidate. Multilingual voting ballots give individuals the 
right to vote without granting the power to cast an informed vote.
  The logical extent of the argument behind multilingual ballots is to 
provide these services in all of the languages spoken in this country. 
After all, why should we privilege one linguistic minority over 
another? And shouldn't we provide news reports and election coverage in 
all these languages, so that these citizens have access to all of the 
information they need to vote?
  The simple and obvious answer is that we can't, my friends. There are 
327 languages spoken in the United States today, and we can't provide 
these services in all of these languages. What's more, we should not. 
It should not be the Government's responsibility to perform these 
tasks. Government is too big, and it costs too much. Government should 
not provide services that individuals or private groups can perform 
just as well.
  It's time that citizens look more to themselves and to their 
communities and less to Government for the answers to these problems. 
Spouses, families, friends, and community groups should bridge the gap 
if voting materials need to be translated. It can be done informally, 
as when a grandson translates an election flyer for a grandmother who 
speaks little English. Or it can be done more formally, through 
privately-funded groups that perform these services for an entire 
ethnic community. But the lesson to be drawn is that Government is not 
always the answer. In this case, Government is the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, multilingual ballots and voting materials are 
unnecessary and inexpensive. Moreover, they fall outside the realm of 
Government's traditional responsibilities. Multilingual ballots are 
another vestige of the 1960's obsession with the Great Society and the 
caretaker state. This vision of Government is bankrupt, and we must 
dismantle the legislative relics of that era. I commend Chairman Hyde 
and the Judiciary Committee for their wisdom in the taking the first 
important step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill when it comes to the House floor.

                          ____________________