[House Report 104-728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-728
_______________________________________________________________________
BILINGUAL VOTING REQUIREMENTS REPEAL ACT OF 1996
_______
July 31, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Canady, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 351]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 351) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to eliminate
certain provisions relating to bilingual voting requirements,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 1
Hearings......................................................... 8
Committee Consideration.......................................... 8
Vote of the Committee............................................ 9
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 9
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings............ 9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 9
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 9
Inflationary Impact Statement.................................... 11
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 11
Agency Views..................................................... 11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 13
Dissenting Views................................................. 23
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal
Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF BILINGUAL VOTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Bilingual Election Requirements.--Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a) is repealed.
(b) Voting Rights.--Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973b) is amended by striking subsection (f).
SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) References to Section 203.--The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 204, by striking ``or 203,''; and
(2) in section 205, by striking ``, 202, or 203'' and
inserting ``or 202''.
(b) References to Section 4.-- The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in sections 2(a), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 4(d), 5, 6, and 13,
by striking ``, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth
in section 4(f)(2)'';
(2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (3) of section 4(a), by striking
``or (in the case of a State or subdivision seeking a
declaratory judgment under the second sentence of this
subsection) in contravention of the guarantees of subsection
(f)(2)'';
(3) in paragraph (1)(B) of section 4(a), by striking ``or (in
the case of a State or subdivision seeking a declaratory
judgment under the second sentence of this subsection) that
denials or abridgments of the right to vote in contravention of
the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have occurred anywhere in
the territory of such State or subdivision''; and
(4) in paragraph (5) of section 4(a), by striking ``or (in
the case of a State or subdivision which sought a declaratory
judgment under the second sentence of this subsection) that
denials or abridgments of the right to vote in contravention of
the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have occurred anywhere in
the territory of such State or subdivision''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 351, the Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act of
1996, repeals Sections 4(f) and 203, the bilingual voting
requirements, from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the ``Act'').
With the repeal of Sections 4(f) and 203, the Federal
Government will no longer be in the business of mandating that
certain jurisdictions provide ballots and other election
materials in foreign languages.
Background and Need for the Legislation
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was primarily designed to
provide swift, administrative relief where there was compelling
evidence that racial discrimination continued to plague the
electoral process, thereby denying black Americans the right to
exercise their franchise as guaranteed by the Fifteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. The Act was amended in 1975 to
require multi-lingual ballots and other election materials in
jurisdictions where a combination of the following three
factors existed: English deficiency, illiteracy and low voter
turnout. This expansion of the Act added two new sections: the
administrative preclearance provisions of title I, section 4,
and the supplemental provisions of title II, section 203.
The 1975 amendments were based on findings 1 which
have been attacked as unsupported by the record of hearings
conducted by the Committee. The underlying premise for this
expansion of the law was that it was somehow discriminatory to
conduct an election in the English language. When the ballots
were last authorized in 1992, after 17 years of use, no
statistical evidence was produced to show that bilingual
ballots had increased voter participation by language
minorities in any covered jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 1973b(f)(1) states that ``The Congress finds that
voting discrimination against citizens of language minorities is
pervasive and national in scope. Such minority citizens are from
environments in which the dominant language is other than English. In
addition they have been denied equal educational opportunities by State
and local governments, resulting in severe disabilities and continuing
illiteracy in the English language. The Congress further finds that,
where State and local officials conduct elections only in English,
language minority citizens are excluded from participating in the
electoral process. In many areas of the country, this exclusion is
aggravated by acts of physical, economic, and political intimidation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. There Is No Evidence of Discrimination in Voting To Justify
Continued Federal Intervention
At the time the law was enacted in 1975, several
representatives expressed the view that expansion of the Act to
cover some groups who speak languages other than English
provided ``a remedy for which there is no wrong.'' ``More
accurately'' they wrote, ``the bill applies the strongest
remedies of the Voting Rights Act to jurisdictions whose record
of voting discrimination is, in general, still waiting to be
proved.'' 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H. Rept. No. 196, 94th Congress, 1st Sess. 119 (1975).
Dissenting views of Representatives Robert McClory, Hamilton Fish, Jr.,
Edward Hutchinson, Charles E. Wiggins, Carlos J. Moorhead, and Henry J.
Hyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion of the Act in 1975 went far beyond the
original concept of the 1965 Act, or the concept envisioned
when the Voting Rights Act was given a five-year extension in
1970. The 1975 amendments aimed to protect ``language
minorities.'' But ``coverage'' under the Voting Rights Act does
not deal with the rights of the individual voter but with the
remedies imposed against governments that discriminate in
voting. What the Voting Rights Act addresses in its pertinent
provisions is the imposition of remedies for violations of
those rights--violations which Congress must find to have
occurred in fact.
Although the argument was made in 1975, the case was not.
The record simply did not support the expansion of coverage to
include the additional jurisdictions contemplated by the
multilingual provisions of the bill. Rep. Jack Brooks, the
former chairman of this Committee, wrote separately in 1975 to
underscore the fact that ``Congress, and especially the
Judiciary Committee, should enact far-reaching constitutional
legislation only when it is supported with solid evidence. To
date, I question whether adequate evidence exists.'' Rep.
Brooks also noted that Arthur Fleming, Chairman of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights informed the House Judiciary
Subcommittee that the Commission lacked conclusive evidence of
minority language discrimination in the electoral
process.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ H. Rept. No. 196, 94th Congress, 1st Sess. 66-67 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also voicing skepticism about the need for the bilingual
provisions in his testimony before the House subcommittee,
Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger stated:
If we are put to the task of supporting with the same
degree of statistical and anecdotal information as was
existing in the past two enactments of the Civil Rights
Act, the same kind of support here * * * we do not yet
have that.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Extension of the Voting Rights Act: Hearings Before the
Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 294 (1975) (testimony of Assistant
Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger).
Speaking before the Senate subcommittee six weeks later,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pottinger declared:
In my testimony before the House Subcommittee, I
suggested that if a strong case were made of widespread
deprivations of the right to vote of non-English-
speaking persons * * * expansion of the special
provisions of the act might be warranted * * *. Since
that time, considerable testimony had been presented to
this subcommittee and to the House subcommittee * * *.
In light of the other remedies available and in light
of the stringent nature of the special provisions, the
Department of Justice has concluded that the evidence
does not require expansion based on the record
currently before us. In other words, that record is not
compelling.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Extension of the Voting Rights Act: Hearings Before the
Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary,
94th Cong., 1st Sess. 543-544 (1975) (testimony of Assistant Attorney
General J. Stanley Pottinger) (emphasis added).
Moreover, Mr. Pottinger highlighted the existing remedies
available under the Act for language minorities. Before the Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
was amended in 1975, section 2 provided that:
No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or
applied by any State or political subdivision to deny
or abridge the right of any citizen of the United
States to vote on account of race or color.
Section 3 of the Act directs the Attorney General to
institute legal actions to enforce section 2 of the Act. Under
sections 11 and 12 of the Act, any official found to have
deprived anyone of their voting rights can be fined or
imprisoned.6 In his testimony before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee, Pottinger expressed the view that such provisions
of the Voting Rights Act already applied to minority language
persons.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 42 U.S.C. 1973i, 42 U.S.C. 1973j.
\7\ Extension of the Voting Rights Act: Hearings Before the
Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 178-179 (1975) (testimony of Assistant
Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Federalism
One thing that proponents and opponents of the Voting
Rights Act could agree on in 1965--it was a radical statute. In
1965, when Congress first passed the Voting Rights Act, the
record of hardcore voting discrimination in the jurisdictions
covered by the legislation was so pervasive that Congress was
justified in banning literacy tests and devices and in
requiring that any and all changes in voting laws and practices
in the affected areas be cleared in Washington, D.C. before
they could go into effect. The remedies in the 1965 Act were
imposed automatically by a ``trigger'' based upon
discrimination borne out by statistical information and
voluminous other evidence.
A. The multilingual mandate is based on an arbitrary, mechanical
formula
To address the findings made by the Committee in 1975,
Congress enacted a prohibition on conducting elections only in
the English language in covered jurisdictions under the Act.
Two mechanical formulas transformed certain states, counties
and parishes into covered jurisdictions under the ``language
minority'' provisions of the Act. However, as discussed below,
these formulas indicate a certain antipathy toward actual
discrimination in voting among many Americans who the Act
purportedly seeks to protect.
Only individuals who are American Indian, Asian American,
Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage and who number more
than 10,000 or five percent of the population in a political
subdivision (a county, a parish, or an Indian tribe without
respect to county lines) derive the alleged benefits of the
multi-lingual voting provisions of the Act. Therefore, ethnic
groups covered under the Act must live sufficiently clustered
in political subdivisions to be entitled to the Act's language
minority provisions. Under these formulas, unless the voting
age population level of a designated ``language minority''
group approaches the arbitrary five percent threshold outlined
in section 4(f)(3) or in section 203(b), they do not acquire
the guarantees that the Act prescribes.
The 1990 Census lists 327 different languages now spoken in
the United States. There is no principled basis for the
provision of multi-lingual ballots to only four enumerated
language minority groups. The hearings on this issue in 1975,
on which the findings for the ``language minority'' provisions
were based, focused primarily on Mexican-Americans in several
counties in Texas.8 Asian Americans were scarcely
mentioned at the hearings. But when legislation was introduced
containing the new language minority provisions, apparently
only 4 language groups had been subject to voting
discrimination that was ``pervasive and national in scope.''
However, one should note that--
\8\ See, Extension of the Voting Rights Act: Hearings Before the
Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 94th Cong.,1st Sess. (1975).
[W]e should be clear that even though access to
bilingual ballots is mandated * * *, this access is not
a right. If it were a right, it would be possessed by
all citizens. The Act makes no attempt to provide this
access to all members of linguistic minorities; access
is mandated only for minorities that number more than
10,000 in a jurisdiction, or which make up more than 5%
of the eligible voters. The thousands of citizens in
smaller linguistic minorities--all equally Americans--
are not denied a right; they are denied an
accommodation. If they were denied a right, they would
be entitled to redress under the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment. And voting in the United
States would suddenly become an impossibly expensive
and chaotic exercise as officials attempted to provide
ballots and instructions in hundreds of different
languages, some of them not yet reduced to writing.
That is what a right to bilingual ballots would
require. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act of 1996: Hearings
Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996) (testimony of Boston University
President John Silber).
B. The multilingual mandate is both ineffective and expensive
1. Effectiveness
The only objective and reliable data available to measure
voter registration and participation on a nationwide basis is
found in the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population
Reports.10 The Current Population Reports show that
Hispanic citizen voter registration has decreased since the
inception of multilingual ballots and other election materials.
Using the last presidential election year before the
multilingual provisions were added to the Act as a baseline,
the 1972 voting registration rate of persons of Hispanic origin
was 44.4 percent. In 1992, the number had declined to 35.0
percent. In addition to the fact that Hispanic voter
registration has not improved, Hispanic voter participation has
also declined since the multilingual provisions have been in
effect. In 1972, 37.5 percent of persons of Hispanic origin
were reported voting. In 1992, only 28.9 percent were reported
voting.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The decennial census does not record information about whether
a person has voted or is registered to vote. The Current Population
Reports are ongoing, monthly surveys of 55,000 households. Every two
years, questions are included about voting.
\11\ Current Population Reports: 1992. Population Characteristics.
Voting and Registration Statistics in the Election of November 1992.
Series P-20, Nos. 174, 228, 293, 344, 383, 414, 440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data from the Current Population Reports is the only
objective information that exists that shows evidence of the
effectiveness--or lack thereof--of the multilingual voting
assistance provisions of Sections 4(f) and 203. There is no
evidence which shows that twenty-one years of multilingual
voting assistance has increased registration or voting by
language minorities. The lack of evidence of effectiveness is
especially striking in contrast to the record in 1975 when
Congress was considering reauthorization of the original non-
language provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act has been extremely effective in
terms of diminishing barriers to and improving minority
voting registration throughout the covered areas.
Registration rates for blacks in covered southern
jurisdictions has continued to increase since passage
of the Act. For example, while only 6.7 percent of the
black voting age population of Mississippi was
registered before 1965, 63.2 percent of such persons
were registered in 1971-72. Similar dramatic measures
in black registration can be observed in Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, and Virginia. Severe gaps between
black and white registration rates have also greatly
diminished since the Act's passage. Prior to 1965, the
black registration rate in the State of Alabama lagged
behind that of whites by 49.9 percentage points. In
1972, that disparity had decreased to 23.6 percentage
points. Likewise in Mississippi, that disparity had
decreased from 63.2 percentage points * * * Closing
registration gaps have occurred throughout the covered
southern jurisdictions.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Extension of the Voting Rights Act: Hearings Before the
Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary,
94th Cong., 1st Sess. 779 (1975).
2. Cost
In addition to being ineffective, the multilingual mandate
is expensive. There are no current nationwide statistics on the
cost and use of multilingual election materials and ballots and
no evidence was presented to the Subcommittee to indicate that
the cost of material is justified by widespread use. The
Subcommittee did hear compelling testimony however from the
Registrar of Yuba County, California, who stated that in the
last three elections (which include the 1996 primary election,
the 1994 general election, and the 1994 primary election), her
office spent $46,204.00 on translations and multilingual
election materials. Despite the fact that Yuba County is a
covered jurisdiction under section 4(f) of the Act and has had
only 1 request in the last 16 years, Yuba County remains a
covered jurisdiction under the Act. County Registrar Frances
Fairey testified how this figure was wasteful and ineffective
to her county:
I have been Registrar for sixteen years and only once
has my office staff handed Spanish literature to
anyone. Let me restate that again; in my sixteen years
as Registrar I have received only this one request.
This was offered to, not requested by the individual.
The only other requests came from teachers who use this
material in their classes.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act of 1996: Hearings
Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996) (testimony of Frances Fairey,
Clerk, Recorder, and Registrar of Voters for Yuba County, CA).
Another example of the expense and ineffectiveness of the
multilingual mandate is the experience of Los Angeles County,
California. In the 1994 general election, Los Angeles County
had to provide ballots and other election materials in six
different languages--Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tagalog,
Spanish and English. The additional cost to the County of
providing ballots and election materials in these five foreign
languages was $345,477.19, at an average cost per voter of
$21.27.14 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that
passage of H.R. 351 will result in savings of $5-10 million per
election for covered state and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Offices of the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
(Election Information Section).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. findings
Based on evidence presented to the Subcommittee it is clear
that the findings made in 1975 are no longer an accurate
reflection of reality. When the ``language minority''
provisions were last authorized in 1992 after 17 years of use,
no statistical evidence was produced to show that the bilingual
ballots had increased voter participation by language
minorities in any covered jurisdiction. Furthermore, no
incidents of actual discrimination were cited in relation to
the expansion and reauthorization of the bilingual voting
requirements in 1992 and no such incidents were presented in
1996 to justify continuance of the multilingual provisions.
A. The Harmful Effects of Federally Mandated Multilingualism
American society has developed on the ``melting pot''
theory--that is, that the whole of America is a nation of
immigrants, and that each of us, or our forefathers, have been
required to learn English in order to succeed. Every American
values his or her heritage, but that is coupled with a
recognition that as Americans, we must acquire a facility in
English if we are to assimilate effectively and fully
participate in all facets of American life. The 1975 amendments
have the effect, whether intended or not, of encouraging
minority language dependency and therefore self-imposed
segregation, both politically and culturally.
English is our common language of discourse. In recognition
of this fact, now, more than ever, the Federal Government has a
responsibility to look for things to bring us together as a
nation and unify us rather than encourage further separation
along racial and ethnic lines. Ballots are the recognized,
endorsed, formalized, authoritative, approved instrument for
citizen participation in the electoral process. The ballot's
highly official nature gives great weight to all that is
written on it. Present this information in English, and the
message is unmistakable that English is the language in which
this nation functions. Ballots in English do not reflect on the
language each one of us may choose to speak in our homes or in
our churches, but it is the language in which all Americans
periodically make decisions that affect the future of the whole
nation.
A ballot in two or more languages delivers a very different
message. Such a ballot gives an official seal of approval to
other languages as co-equal to English in the process that
determines the future course for our nation. It says that the
highest authorities in the land place no special value on the
English language for the most symbolic act of democratic self-
governance.
Hearings
The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held one
day of hearings on H.R. 351 on April 18, 1996. Testimony was
received from 12 witnesses: Representative John Edward Porter;
Representative Bob Livingston; Representative Xavier Becerra;
Representative Nydia Velazquez; Representative Peter King; Dr.
John Silber, President, Boston University; Karen Narasaki,
Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium; Ronald Rotunda, the Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Professor
of Law, University of Illinois; Hon. Deval Patrick, Asst.
Attorney General for Civil Rights, Department of Justice; Linda
Chavez, President, Center for Equal Opportunity; Antonia
Hernandez, President and General Counsel, Mexican American
Legal Defense & Education Fund; Frances Fairey, County Clerk
and Recorder, Yuba County, California.
Committee Consideration
On May 23, 1996, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met
in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R.
351, with a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, by
a recorded vote of 5 to 2, a quorum being present.
On July 16, 1996, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 351, with a single
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a recorded vote of
17 to 12, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
A motion to report favorably the bill, H.R. 351, as
amended, was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 17 to 12. The vote
was as follows:
AYES NAYS
Mr. Hyde Mr. Schiff
Mr. Moorhead Mr. Conyers
Mr. Sensenbrenner Mr. Frank
Mr. McCollum Mr. Schumer
Mr. Gekas Mr. Bryant (TX)
Mr. Coble Mr. Reed
Mr. Smith (TX) Mr. Scott
Mr. Canady Mr. Watt
Mr. Goodlatte Mr. Becerra
Mr. Buyer Ms. Lofgren
Mr. Hoke Ms. Jackson Lee
Mr. Bono Ms. Waters
Mr. Heineman
Mr. Bryant (TN)
Mr. Chabot
Mr. Flanagan
Mr. Barr
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings
No findings or recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 351, the following
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 29, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H.R. 351, the Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act
of 1996, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the
Judiciary on July 16, 1996. CBO estimates that enacting this
legislation would have no significant impact on the federal
budget. Enacting H.R. 351 would not affect direct spending or
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply
to the bill.
H.R. 351 would amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Public
Law 89-110) to repeal the requirement that certain
jurisdictions provide bilingual voting materials.
Federal budgetary impact.--Under current law, the
Department of Justice enforces the provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, and the Census Bureau determines which
jurisdictions should provide bilingual voting materials.
Enacting H.R. 351 would not significantly affect spending by
these agencies.
Impact on State, local, and tribal governments.--H.R. 351
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). By
rescinding bilingual election requirements, the bill would, in
general, save state, local, and tribal governments money. Some
states--New Mexico, for example--would continue to provide
bilingual materials and education because of state or local
constitutional or statutory requirements. In those cases, H.R.
351 would have no budgetary effect. In other cases--such as
counties in rural South Dakota with large Native American
populations--volunteers provide translator assistance for oral
language communities, and those services cost local governments
nothing. Some large jurisdictions, however, incur substantial
costs when they have to hire translators and print
informational material and ballots in a number of different
languages. This is particularly the case in southern California
and New York.
Total costs of complying with current law range from
minimal in small jurisdictions to over $250,000 in the nation's
largest counties with large non-English speaking populations.
Over 250 jurisdictions are subject to the bilingual
requirements, but most of these jurisdictions are relatively
small. CBO estimates that state and local jurisdictions, in
total, could save between $5 million and $10 million per
election if H.R. 351 became law.
Impact on the private sector.--This bill would impose no
new private-sector mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark
Grabowicz (for federal costs), Leo Lex (for the state, local,
and tribal government impact), and Matthew Eyles (for the
private-sector impact).
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Inflationary Impact Statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that H.R. 351
will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and
costs in the national economy.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that this Act may be cited as the
``Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act of 1996''.
Section 2. Repeal of bilingual voting requirements
Section 2 of the Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act
of 1996 would repeal section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a) and section 4(f) of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(f)).
Both sections assume for purposes of the Act that covered
jurisdictions are engaged in discrimination against language
minorities to such an extent that the Federal Government must
interject itself to regulate an election process traditionally
reserved to the States in order to remedy the discrimination.
Both sections mandate that covered jurisdictions provide
ballots and other election materials in languages other than
English. Moreover, jurisdictions subject to section 4(f) are
subject to the preclearance provisions under section 5 of the
Act.
Section 3. Conforming amendments
Section 3 of the Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act
of 1996 would make conforming amendments to all sections of the
Act that reference sections 203 and 4(f) by deleting all such
references.
Agency Views
The views of the Department of Justice are set forth in the
following letter.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
Hon. Henry Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the
Justice Department on H.R. 351, which would repeal the minority
language provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This
letter follows the Department's earlier letter to Chairman
Canady of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and testimony
before the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General Deval L.
Patrick. Both of these documents are enclosed for your review.
We strongly oppose the repeal of these important provisions
of the Voting Rights Act. For over two decades, these
provisions have guaranteed the right to vote of United States
citizens who are not yet fully proficient in English. If a
repeal bill were sent to the President, the Attorney General
would recommend that he veto such legislation.
Congress added the minority language provisions to the
Voting Rights Act in 1975, recognizing that large numbers of
United States citizens who primarily spoke languages other than
English had been effectively excluded from participation in our
electoral process. Congress made specific findings that voting
discrimination against citizens of language minorities is
pervasive and national in scope, and that these citizens were
denied equal educational opportunities by State and local
governments, resulting in severe disabilities and continuing
illiteracy in the English language. Therefore, the rationale
for the minority language provisions was, in part, identical to
that for removing obstructions at the polls for illiterate
African American citizens: Congress recognized that the
inability to read and understand voting instructions and
ballots should not be a bar to the constitutional right to
vote, whether the discrimination that had contributed to that
illiteracy was based on race, national origin, or language
proficiency.
The repeal of the minority language protections of the
Voting Rights Act would disenfranchise American citizens who
only recently have had the opportunity to engage meaningfully
in participatory democracy. The minority language provisions
were passed to help American citizens, who work and pay taxes,
but have not mastered English well and need some assistance to
be able to cast an informed vote. The minority language
provisions enable these voters to know not only who is running
for office, but also to understand complex constitutional
amendments or bond issues that appear on the ballot and have
just as profound an effect on their lives as the individuals
elected to office. The minority language provisions increase
the number of registered voters and permit voters to
participate on an informed basis.
The stated purpose of H.R. 351 is to eliminate the
bilingual election provisions in the Voting Rights Act. Those
provisions are found in section 203 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a) and
section 4(f)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1973b(4)(f)(4)) of the Act. However,
in the process of eliminating those provisions, H.R. 351 would
repeal section 4(f) in its entirety, including section 4(f)(2).
The bill would remove all references to section 4(f)(2)
throughout the Voting Rights Act. By applying such a broad
brush, the bill would have other detrimental consequences as
well, since it would call into question the applicability of
the protections of the Voting Rights Act to members of language
minority groups (defined as ``persons who are American Indian,
Asian American, Alaskan Native or of Spanish heritage,'' (42
U.S.C. 19731(c)(3)). For example:
1. By eliminating both section 4(f)(2) and the
reference to it in section 2(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
1973(a)), H.R. 351 appears to eliminate entirely the
nationwide ban on discriminatory election practices
against members of language minority groups. This could
prevent members of language minority groups from being
able to challenge vote dilution, such as that found
unlawful by the court in Gomez v. City of Watsonville,
863 F. 2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S.
1080 (1989) (successful challenge by Hispanics to city
at-large election system). More fundamentally, H.R. 351
would call into question the legal right of members of
language minorities, such as Hispanic-Americans and
Asian-Americans, to challenge such blatantly harmful
election practices as limiting the voter registration
of only language minority citizens to one day a week or
limiting only their balloting to the hours of 10:00
a.m.-12:00 noon.
2. H.R. 351 also would raise a host of questions
about the coverage under section 5 of the Act (42
U.S.C. 1973c) of jurisdictions that became covered as a
result of the 1975 amendments to the Act. Those
amendments created the coverage formula found in the
third sentence of section 4(b) (42 U.S.C. 1973b(b)). It
is unclear whether a jurisdiction that has been covered
since 1975--because it met the section 4(b) criteria--
would remain covered until it could ``bail out,'' using
the provisions of Section 4(a) (42 U.S.C. 1973b(a)).
More drastically, H.R. 351 could be interpreted to
eliminate such section 5 coverage entirely for these
jurisdictions.
3. H.R. 351 also appears to eliminate the
availability of Federal voting examiners and observers
to protect individuals from being denied the right to
vote because they are members of language minorities.
See Section 6 (42 U.S.C. 1973d) and Section 8 (42
U.S.C. 1973f).
In the past, Congress has recognized and understood the
need for minority language voting assistance. It has extended
the minority language provisions twice and the provisions are
now in effect until 2007. The interest in a vital democracy--
through access to the ballot box--is not limited to any
particular political party. Each enactment and amendment
strengthening the minority language provisions has enjoyed
strong bipartisan support in the Congress and the support of
the Ford, Reagan and Bush Administrations. This Administration
proudly joins this bipartisan tradition.
More than our language that unites us. We are united as
Americans by the principles of tolerance, free speech,
representative democracy, and equality under the law. Because
H.R. 351 contravenes each of these principles, we strongly
oppose this bill.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Department's
views on H.R. 351. The Office of Management and Budget has
advised this Department that there is no objection to the
submission of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--VOTING RIGHTS
Sec. 2. (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to
voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or
applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which
results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen
of the United States to vote on account of race or color[, or
in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section
4(f)(2)], as provided in subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3. (a) Whenever the Attorney General or an aggrieved
person institutes a proceeding under any statute to enforce the
voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment in
any State or political subdivision the court shall authorize
the appointment of Federal examiners by the United States Civil
Service Commission in accordance with section 6 to serve for
such period of time and for such political subdivisions as the
court shall determine is appropriate to enforce the voting
guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment (1) as part
of any interlocutory order if the court determines that the
appointment of such examiners is necessary to enforce such
voting guarantees or (2) as part of any final judgment if the
court finds that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth
amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in such
State or subdivision: Provided, That the court need not
authorize the appointment of examiners if any incidents of
denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race
or color[, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in
section 4(f)(2)], (1) have been few in number and have been
promptly and effectively corrected by State or local action,
(2) the continuing effect of such incidents has been
eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable probability of their
recurrence in the future.
(b) If in a proceeding instituted by the Attorney General
or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce the voting
guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment in any
State or political subdivision the court finds that a test or
device has been used for the purpose or with the effect of
denying or abridging the right of any citizen of the United
States to vote on account of race or color[, or in
contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2)],
it shall suspend the use of tests and devices in such State or
political subdivisions as the court shall determine is
appropriate and for such period as it deems necessary.
(c) If in any proceeding instituted by the Attorney General
or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce the voting
guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment in any
State or political subdivision the court finds that violations
of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable
relief have occurred within the territory of such State or
political subdivision, the court, in addition to such relief as
it may grant, shall retain jurisdiction for such period as it
may deem appropriate and during such period no voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice,
or procedure with respect to voting different from that in
force or effect at the time the proceeding was commenced shall
be enforced unless and until the court finds that such
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure
does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or
color[, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in
section 4(f)(2)]: Provided, That such qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced
if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or
other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the
Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an
objection within sixty days after such submission, except that
neither the court's finding nor the Attorney General's failure
to object shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement
of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure.
Sec. 4. (a)(1) To assure that the right of citizens of the
United States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of
race or color, no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in
any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to
comply with any test or device in any State with respect to
which the determinations have been made under the first two
sentences of subsection (b) or in any political subdivision of
such State (as such subdivision existed on the date such
determinations were made with respect to such State), though
such determinations were not made with respect to such
subdivision as a separate unit, or in any political subdivision
with respect to which such determinations have been made as a
separate unit, unless the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia issues a declaratory judgment under this
section. No citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any
Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to
comply with any test or device in any State with respect to
which the determinations have been made under the third
sentence of subsection (b) of this section or in any political
subdivision of such State (as such subdivision existed on the
date such determinations were made with respect to such State),
though such determinations were not made with respect to such
subdivision as a separate unit or in any political subdivision
with respect to which such determinations have been made as a
separate unit, unless the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia issues a declaratory judgment under this
section. A declaratory judgment under this section shall issue
only if such court determines that during the ten years
preceding the filing of the action, and during the pendency of
such action--
(A) no such test or device has been used within such
State or political subdivision for the purpose or with
the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race or color [or (in the case of a State or
subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection) in contravention of
the guarantees of subsection (f)(2)];
(B) no final judgment of any court of the United
States, other than the denial of declaratory judgment
under this section, has determined that denials or
abridgements of the right to vote on account of race or
color have occurred anywhere in the territory of such
State or political subdivision [or (in the case of a
State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment
under the second sentence of this subsection) that
denials or abridgements of the right to vote in
contravention of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2)
have occurred anywhere in the territory of such State
or subdivision] and no consent decree, settlement, or
agreement has been entered into resulting in any
abandonment of a voting practice challenged on such
grounds; and no declaratory judgment under this section
shall be entered during the pendency of an action
commenced before the filing of an action under this
section and alleging such denials or abridgements of
the right to vote;
* * * * * * *
(3) No declaratory judgment shall issue under this
subsection with respect to such State or political subdivision
if such plaintiff and governmental units within its territory
have, during the period beginning ten years before the date the
judgment is issued, engaged in violations of any provision of
the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State or
political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting
on account of race or color [or (in the case of a State or
subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the second
sentence of this subsection) in contravention of the guarantees
of subsection (f)(2)] unless the plaintiff establishes that any
such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were
not repeated.
* * * * * * *
(5) An action pursuant to this subsection shall be heard
and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with
the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States
Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. The court
shall retain jurisdiction of any action pursuant to this
subsection for ten years after judgment and shall reopen the
action upon motion of the Attorney General or any aggrieved
person alleging that conduct has occurred which, had that
conduct occurred during the ten-year periods referred to in
this subsection, would have precluded the issuance of a
declaratory judgment under this subsection. The court, upon
such reopening, shall vacate the declaratory judgment issued
under this section if, after the issuance of such declaratory
judgment, a final judgment against the State or subdivision
with respect to which such declaratory judgment was issued, or
against any governmental unit within that State or subdivision,
determines that denials or abridgements of the right to vote on
account of race or color have occurred anywhere in the
territory of such State or political subdivision [or (in the
case of a State or subdivision which sought a declaratory
judgment under the second sentence of this subsection) that
denials or abridgements of the right to vote in contravention
of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have occurred anywhere
in the territory of such State or subdivision], or if, after
the issuance of such declaratory judgment a consent decree,
settlement, or agreement has been entered into resulting in any
abandonment of a voting practice challenged on such grounds.
(d) For purposes of this section no State or political
subdivision shall be determined to have engaged in the use of
tests or devices for the purpose or with the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color[, or
in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section
4(f)(2)] if (1) incidents of such use have been few in number
and have been promptly and effectively corrected by State or
local action, (2) the continuing effect of such incidents has
been eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable probability of
their recurrence in the future.
[(f)(1) The Congress finds that voting discrimination
against citizens of language minorities is pervasive and
national in scope. Such minority citizens are from environments
in which the dominant language is other than English. In
addition they have been denied equal educational opportunities
by State and local governments, resulting in severe
disabilities and continuing illiteracy in the English language.
The Congress further finds that, where State and local
officials conduct elections only in English, language minority
citizens are excluded from participating in the electoral
process. In many areas of the country, this exclusion is
aggravated by acts of physical, economic, and political
intimidation. The Congress declares that, in order to enforce
the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to
the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate
such discrimination by prohibiting English-only elections, and
by prescribing other remedial devices.
[(2) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by
any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right
of any citizen of the United States to vote because he is a
member of a language minority group.
[(3) In addition to the meaning given the term under
section 4(c), the term ``test or device'' shall also mean any
practice or requirement by which any State or political
subdivision provided any registration or voting notices, forms,
instructions, assistance, or other materials or information
relating to the electoral process, including ballots, only in
the English language, where the Director of the Census
determines that more than five per centum of the citizens of
voting age residing in such State or political subdivision are
members of a single language minority. With respect to section
4(b), the term ``test or device'', as defined in this
subsection, shall be employed only in making the determinations
under the third sentence of that subsection.
[(4) Whenever any State or political subdivision subject to
the prohibitions of the second sentence of section 4(a)
provides any registration or voting notices, forms,
instructions, assistance, or other materials or information
relating to the electoral process, including ballots, it shall
provide them in the language of the applicable language
minority group as well as in the English language: Provided,
That where the language of the applicable minority group is
oral or unwritten or in the case of Alaskan Natives and
American Indians, if the predominate language is historically
unwritten, the State or political subdivision is only required
to furnish oral instructions, assistance, or other information
relating to registration and voting.]
Sec. 5. Whenever a State or political subdivision with
respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a)
based upon determinations made under the first sentence of
section 4(b) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer
any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or
standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting
different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, or
whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which
the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) based upon
determinations made under the second sentence of section 4(b)
are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice,
or procedure with respect to voting different from that in
force or effect on November 1, 1968, or whenever a State or
political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions
set forth in section 4(a) based upon determinations made under
the third sentence of section 4(b) are in effect shall enact or
seek to administer any voting qualifications or prerequisite to
voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to
voting different from that in force or effect on November 1,
1972, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a
declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and
will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of race or color[, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2)], and unless and until
the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the
right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That
such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure
has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other
appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the
Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an
objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good
cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty
days after such submission, the Attorney General has
affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made.
Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that
no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General's failure
to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this
section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of
such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure. In the event the Attorney General affirmatively
indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day
period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General
may reserve the right to reexamine the submission if additional
information comes to his attention during the remainder of the
sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in
accordance with this section. Any action under this section
shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in
accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of
the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court.
Sec. 6. Whenever (a) a court has authorized the appointment
of examiners pursuant to the provisions of section 3(a), or
(b), unless a declaratory judgment has been rendered under
section 4(a), the Attorney General certifies with respect to
any political subdivision named in, or included within the
scope of, determinations made under section 4(b) that (1) he
has received complaints in writing from twenty or more
residents of such political subdivision alleging that they have
been denied the right to vote under color of law on account of
race or color[, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth
in section 4(f)(2)], and that he believes such complaints to be
meritorious, or (2) that in his judgment (considering, among
other factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons to white
persons registered to vote within such subdivision appears to
him to be reasonably attributable to violations of the
fourteenth or fifteenth amendment or whether substantial
evidence exists that bona fide efforts are being made within
such subdivision to comply with the fourteenth or fifteenth
amendment), the appointment of examiners is otherwise necessary
to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth
amendment, the Civil Service Commission shall appoint as many
examiners for such subdivision as it may deem appropriate to
prepare and maintain lists of persons eligible to vote in
Federal, State, and local elections. Such examiners, hearing
officers provided for in section 9(a), and other persons deemed
necessary by the Commission to carry out the provisions and
purposes of this Act shall be appointed, compensated, and
separated without regard to the provisions of any statute
administered by the Civil Service Commission, and service under
this Act shall not be considered employment for the purposes of
any statute administered by the Civil Service Commission,
except the provisions of subchapter III of chapter 73 of title
5, United States Code, relating to political activities:
Provided, That the Commission is authorized, after consulting
the head of the appropriate department or agency, to designate
suitable persons in the official service of the United States,
with their consent, to serve in these positions. Examiners and
hearing officers shall have the power to administer oaths.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 13. Listing procedures shall be terminated in any
political subdivision of any State (a) with respect to
examiners appointed pursuant to clause (b) of section 6
whenever the Attorney General notifies the Civil Service
Commission, or whenever the District Court for the District of
Columbia determines in an action for declaratory judgment
brought by any political subdivision with respect to which the
Director of the Census has determined that more than 50 per
centum of the nonwhite persons of voting age residing therein
are registered to vote, (1) that all persons listed by an
examiner for such subdivision have been placed on the
appropriate voting registration roll, and (2) that there is no
longer reasonable cause to believe that persons will be
deprived of or denied the right to vote on account of race or
color[, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in
section 4(f)(2)] in such subdivision, and (b), with respect to
examiners appointed pursuant to section 3(a), upon order of the
authorizing court. A political subdivision may petition the
Attorney General for the termination of listing procedures
under clause (a) of this section, and may petition the Attorney
General to request the Director of the Census to take such
survey or census as may be appropriate for the making of the
determination provided for in this section. The District Court
for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction to require
such survey or census to be made by the Director of the Census
and it shall require him to do so if it deems the Attorney
General's refusal to request such survey or census to be
arbitrary or unreasonable.
* * * * * * *
[bilingual election requirements
[Sec. 203. (a) The Congress finds that, through the use of
various practices and procedures, citizens of language
minorities have been effectively excluded from participation in
the electoral process. Among other factors, the denial of the
right to vote of such minority group citizens is ordinarily
directly related to the unequal educational opportunities
afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting
participation. The Congress declares that, in order to enforce
the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to
the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate
such discrimination by prohibiting these practices, and by
prescribing other remedial devices.
[(b) Bilingual Voting Materials Requirement.--
[(1) Generally.--Before August 6, 2007, no covered
State or political subdivision shall provide voting
materials only in the English language.
[(2) Covered states and political subdivisions.--
[(A) Generally.--A State or political
subdivision is a covered State or political
subdivision for the purposes of this subsection
if the Director of the Census determines, based
on census data, that--
[(i)(I) more than 5 percent of the
citizens of voting age of such State or
political subdivision are members of a
single language minority and are
limited-English proficient;
[(II) more than 10,000 of the
citizens of voting age of such
political subdivision are members of a
single language minority and are
limited-English proficient; or
[(III) in the case of a political
subdivision that contains all or any
part of an Indian reservation, more
than 5 percent of the American Indian
or Alaska Native citizens of voting age
within the Indian reservation are
members of a single language minority
and are limited-English proficient; and
[(ii) the illiteracy rate of the
citizens in the language minority as a
group is higher than the national
illiteracy rate.
[(B) Exception.--The prohibitions of this
subsection do not apply in any political
subdivision that has less than 5 percent voting
age limited-English proficient citizens of each
language minority which comprises over 5
percent of the statewide limited-English
proficient population of voting age citizens,
unless the political subdivision is a covered
political subdivision independently from its
State.
[(3) Definitions.--As used in this section--
[(A) the term ``voting materials'' means
registration or voting notices, forms,
instructions, assistance, or other materials or
information relating to the electoral process,
including ballots;
[(B) the term ``limited-English proficient''
means unable to speak or understand English
adequately enough to participate in the
electoral process;
[(C) the term ``Indian reservation'' means
any area that is an American Indian or Alaska
Native area, as defined by the Census Bureau
for the purposes of the 1990 decennial census;
[(D) the term ``citizens'' means citizens of
the United States; and
[(E) the term ``illiteracy'' means the
failure to complete the 5th primary grade.
[(4) Special rule.--The determinations of the
Director of the Census under this subsection shall be
effective upon publication in the Federal Register and
shall not be subject to review in any court.
[(c) Whenever any State or political subdivision subject to
the prohibition of subsection (b) of this section provides any
registration or voting notices, forms, instructions,
assistance, or other materials or information relating to the
electoral process, including ballots, it shall provide them in
the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the
English language: Provided, That where the language of the
applicable minority group is oral or unwritten or in the case
of Alaskan natives and American Indians, if the predominant
language is historically unwritten, the State or political
subdivision is only required to furnish oral instructions,
assistance, or other information relating to registration and
voting.
[(d) Any State or political subdivision subject to the
prohibition of subsection (b) of this section, which seeks to
provide English-only registration or voting materials or
information, including ballots, may file an action against the
United States in the United States District Court for a
declaratory judgment permitting such provision. The court shall
grant the requested relief if it determines that the illiteracy
rate of the applicable language minority group within the State
or political subdivision is equal to or less than the national
illiteracy rate.
[(e) For purposes of this section, the term ``language
minorities'' or ``language minority group'' means persons who
are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives, or of
Spanish heritage.]
judicial relief
Sec. 204. Whenever the Attorney General has reason to
believe that a State or political subdivision (a) has enacted
or is seeking to administer any test or device as a
prerequisite to voting in violation of the prohibition
contained in section 201, or (b) undertakes to deny the right
to vote in any election in violation of section 202, [or 203,]
he may institute for the United States, or in the name of the
United States, an action in a district court of the United
States, in accordance with sections 1391 through 1393 of title
28, United States Code, for a restraining order, a preliminary
or permanent injunction, or such other order as he deems
appropriate. An action under this subsection shall be heard and
determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the
provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States
Code and any appeal shall be to the Supreme Court.
penalty
Sec. 205. Whoever shall deprive or attempt to deprive any
person of any right secured by section 201[, 202, or 203] or
202 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
By reporting H.R. 351, the Republican majority continues to
attack the bi-partisan civil rights consensus that has existed
in this nation for more than three decades. The minority
language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act have
been signed into law and supported by Presidents Ford, Reagan
and Bush, as well as Presidents Clinton and Carter. During
their most recent reauthorization in 1992, Senator Hatch (R-UT)
said that the provisions are an ``integral part of our
government's assurance that Americans do have * * * access'' to
the ballot box.1 The fact that House Republicans would
repudiate the civil rights positions of their own Presidents
and Senate Judiciary Chairman only serves to illustrate how
truly extreme their party has become.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See infra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denying citizens minority language assistance with regard
to voting will not force or encourage them to learn English. As
the late Hamilton Fish, Jr., then Ranking Republican on the
House Judiciary Committee so eloquently stated in 1992, ``by
enabling language minority citizens to vote in an effective and
informed manner, we are giving them a stake in our society, and
this assistance * * * will lead to more, not less, integration
and inclusion of these citizens in our mainstream.'' 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See infra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence available to date indicates that the minority
language provisions of the Voting Rights Act are an effective,
targeted, low cost method of ensuring the Constitutional right
to vote. According to the Government Accounting Office, the
average cost of providing written assistance is minuscule,
costing an average of 2.9% of election expenses or less.3
Recent studies confirm that nearly three-fourths of Spanish
speaking American citizens would be less likely to vote if
minority language assistance were not available.4
Moreover, by striking section 4(f)(2) of the Voting Rights Act,
H.R. 351 goes so far as to dismantle federal anti-
discrimination language protections for language
minorities.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See infra note 33.
\4\ See infra note 28.
\5\ See infra notes 29-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting this legislation represents yet another sad day
for this Committee. Its actions are the equivalent of a modern
day poll tax designed a century ago to keep African Americans
from the voting booths. We urge the Members to oppose this
extreme short-sighted measure.
i. the minority language assistance provisions of the voting rights act
are well grounded in experience and fact, and have enjoyed broad,
bipartisan support
The Voting Rights Act was first adopted in 1965 in response
to discriminatory tactics faced by African American voters in
the South. This landmark legislation granted to all American
citizens the right to vote in any federal, state or local
election.6 In 1975, Congress recognized that large numbers
of American citizens whose primary language was not English had
also been effectively excluded from participation in our
electoral process, and added two significant minority language
provisions to protect them.7 The first provision added was
Section 4(f) of the Voting Rights Act, which requires, among
other things, minority language assistance (such as bilingual
ballots and other forms of minority language voting assistance)
in those jurisdictions where:
\6\ In originally passing the Voting Rights Act, Congress found a
variety of devices were being used in the South to deny citizens the
right to vote on account of their race or color. Chief among these
discriminatory practices were: (1) literacy tests; (2) completion of
application forms; (3) oral Constitutional understanding and
interpretation tests; (4) understanding of the duties and obligations
of citizenship; and (5) good moral character requirements. See
generally, H. Rept. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).
\7\ This was not the first instance in American history where the
importance of translation into minority languages was recognized. For
example, in 1774 the Continental Congress ordered documents of its
deliberations printed in German so that Americans of German descent
could understand the decisions being made by that body. The Articles of
Confederation were issued in English, German, and French. And in
California, as early as 1850, the legislature authorized the
dissemination of statutes, legislative journals and supreme court
decisions in English and Spanish. See Juan F. Perea, ``Demography and
Distrust: An Essay on American Languages, Cultural Pluralism, and
Official English,'' 77 Minn. L. Rev. 269 (1992).
(1) over 5 percent of the voting-age citizens, on
November 1, 1972, were members of a single language
minority group; (2) registration and election materials
were provided only in English on November 1, 1972; and
(3) less than 50% of citizens of voting age voted or
were registered to vote in the November, 1972
election.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973b(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Section 4(f) is also subject to general provisions and
limitations under the Voting Rights Act, including the
requirement that any changes in voting procedures in a covered
jurisdiction must be preapproved by the Department of Justice
or Federal District Court.)
The second provision added was Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act,9 which required similar minority language
assistance in those jurisdictions where it is determined:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section 203 is expressly predicated on rights guaranteed by the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (equal protection and the right to
vote). See 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973a(a).
(i) that more than 5 percent of the citizens of
voting age of such State or political subdivisions are
members of a single language minority and are limited-
English proficient and (ii) that the illiteracy rate of
such persons as a group is higher than the national
illiteracy rate.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In order for a jurisdiction to be covered, the 5 percent
threshold must be met by a single language minority group (i.e., 3
percent Spanish and 2 percent Chinese would not be covered under
Section 203). For the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, the term
``language minority'' includes ``persons who are American Indian, Asian
American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish Heritage.'' 42 U.S.C. secs.
1973aa-1 (b), (e), 1973l(c)(3).
Unlike Section 4(f), which is based on a one-time finding of
discriminatory voting practices, Section 203 allows for a
changing determination of coverage, based on census data.
The 1975 Amendments were enacted on the recommendation of
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights which found, among other
things, that language minorities experienced high illiteracy
rates and voting discrimination.11 Congress further
determined language minority citizens suffered from voting
discrimination as a result of inadequate numbers of minority
registration personnel, uncooperative registrars, and the
disproportionate effect of purging laws on non-English speaking
citizens because of language barriers.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Hearings
Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Senate Comm.on the
Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 771-789 (1975); See also, U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans
in the 1990s, (1992) at 99.
\12\ In addition to restrictive voter registration procedures aimed
at language minorities, Congress found many obstacles were placed in
the paths of language minority voters designed to frighten, discourage,
frustrate, or otherwise inhibit participation by voting (e.g., failure
to locate voters' name on precinct lists, location of polls at places
where minority voters feel unwelcome or uncomfortable, or which are
inconvenient to them, inadequacy of voting facilities, under-
representation of minority language poll workers and the lack of
bilingual materials at the polls, and outright physical, economic and
political intimidation). See generally, S. Rept. No. 295, 94th Cong.,
1st Sess. (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1982, Congress again found that discrimination against
language minorities affected their right to vote and extended
the authorization for Section 4(f) of the Voting Rights Act for
25 years (to 2007) and Section 203 for 10 years (to
1992).13 In 1992, Congress continued to find inequitable
treatment in education which resulted in high rates of
illiteracy and impaired the ability of language minorities to
vote.14 At this time Congress chose to reauthorize Section
203 for an additional 15 years (to 2007, concurrent with the
rest of the Act),15 and further broadened the scope of
Section 203 to add a supplementary formula to cover counties
where there are more than 10,000 voters in a single language
minority group who speak English poorly.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Since the adoption of the Voting Rights Act, covered
jurisdictions were found to have substantially moved from directly
discriminatory impediments to voting to more sophisticated devices that
dilute minority voting strength. In the period of 1975-80, the most
common devices used to dilute minority voting power were annexations,
the use of at-large elections, majority vote requirements, and the
redrawing of district lines. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973b(a)(F)(8); See S.
Rept. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. 10 (1982).
\14\ See generally, H. Rept. No. 655, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1992).
\15\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973aa-1a(b)(1).
\16\ For example, Los Angeles County has 200,000 limited English
proficient voting age Hispanics, but had not previously been covered
under Section 203, while small jurisdictions with far fewer Hispanics
had been covered under the 5% threshold. Section 203 was also expanded
to include jurisdictions which include any part of a reservation with
5% or more Native American or Alaska Native limited-English proficient
voting age citizens. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973aa-1a(b)(2)(A)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was the case in 1975 (with President Ford) and 1982
(with President Reagan), the 1992 Amendment was signed into law
by a Republican President (Bush) and received broad and
bipartisan support in the Congress. For example, during the
1992 Senate Judiciary hearing regarding the extension of the
minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Senator
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) stated:
The 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
access.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ S. Hrg. 102-1066, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. 1992 at 134.
The late Hamilton Fish, Jr., the Ranking Republican, on the
House Judiciary Committee, was similarly supportive when the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee took up the 1992 authorization legislation, arguing:
[I]t seems evident to me that by enabling language
minority citizens to vote in an effective and informed
manner, we are giving them a stake in our society, and
this assistance provides true access to government that
I trust will lead to more, not less, integration and
inclusion of these citizens in our mainstream.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.R. 4312 and H.R. 5236,
Transcript at 22-23, June 4, 1992.
The 1992 Amendments were adopted by overwhelming bipartisan
margins of 237-125 in the House, and 75-20 in the
Senate.19 Yet, only four years later, this bill would
repeal these provisions without evidence that the
discrimination has ended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 138 Cong. Rec. H6614 (daily ed. July 24, 1992); 138 Cong.
Rec. S11825 (daily ed. August 7, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. repeal of the minority language provisions will significantly
obstruct the right to vote
At the signing of the 1982 extension, President Reagan
declared that the right to vote is ``the crowning jewel of
American liberties'' and noted the Voting Rights Act ``proves
our unbending commitment to voting rights.'' 20
Unfortunately, by now seeking to strike the minority language
assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Congress will
be taking a dangerous step away from the Constitutionally
guaranteed right to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Pub. Papers of the President--Administration of Ronald
Reagan (1982) at 822.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate, the registration and voting statistics of
language minority citizens when compared to their Caucasian
counterparts was alarmingly low in 1972--before the Voting
Rights Act was made applicable to language minorities. Only
44.4% of citizens of Latino descent were registered to vote,
while 73.4% of Caucasians were registered in 1972.21 And
in 1974, only 22.9% of Latino-origin citizens participated in
the national election, which was less than one-half of the
participation rate for Caucasians.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ S. Rept. No. 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975) citing Current
Population Reports: 1972, Population Characteristics, Voting and
Registration Statistics in the Election of November 1972, Series p. 20,
No. 263, Table 1, at 22.
\22\ S. Rept. No. 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975) citing
unpublished data for the Current Population Survey: 1974, providing by
the Bureau of Census to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then, the minority language assistance provisions of
the Voting Rights Act have provided a catalyst for increased
voter participation in language minority populations. From 1980
to 1990, Latino voter population increased by five times the
rate of the rest of the nation, and the number of Latinos
registered to vote increased by approximately 500,000 between
1990-92.23 Participation statistics for Native Americans
also indicate an increase in turnout as a result of minority
language voting assistance. One study indicates that voter
turnout for reservation precincts on seven Arizona Indian
reservations rose from 11,789 in 1972 to 15,982 in 1980.24
similarly, the Navajo Nation reports that voter registration
increased from 5,049 in 1972 to 7,015 in 1990 in McKinley
County, New Mexico, and voter turnout increased from 9,706 in
1972 to 18,355 in 1990 in Apache County, Arizona.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ H. Rept. No. 655, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. 6 (1992); See also
Letter from Antonia Hernandez, President and General Counsel, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund, to the Honorable Charles T.
Canady, Chairman, Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Comm. on the
Judiciary, (April 23, 1996).
\24\ See A Bill to Reauthorize Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act: Hearing on H.R. 4312 Before the Subcomm. on Civil and
Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 102d Cong.,
2d Sess. 16 (1992) (Joint testimony of the Native American Rights Fund
and the National Congress of American Indians).
\25\ Navajo Nation Office of Election Administration, Window Rock,
Arizona, May 17, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, exit polls revealed that in Los Angeles
84% of Asian American voters indicated that bilingual ballots
would be helpful,26 while 80% of Asian American voters in
Chinatown and Queens, New York indicated they would vote more
often if bilingual assistance were provided.27 Similarly,
70% of monolingual Spanish-speaking American citizens have
indicated they would be less likely to register to vote if
minority language assistance were not available.28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See A Bill to Reauthorize Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act: Hearing on H.R. 4312 Before the Subcomm. on Civil and
Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 102d Cong.,
2d Sess. 16 (1992) (Statement of the Japanese American Citizens
League).
\27\ See The Bilingual Voting Provision of the Voting Rights Act of
1965: Hearing on S. 2236 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 102d
Cong., 2d Sess. at 4-5 (1992) (Statement of Charles Pei Wang, Vice
Chairman, United States Commission on Civil Rights).
\28\ See Esteban Lizardo, Bilingual Elections: Latinos, Language
and Voting Rights: A Report by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund,
(1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to repealing the federal requirement for
minority language assistance in voting, H.R. 351 dangerously
vitiates a number of other critical protections currently
provided under the Voting Rights Act. H.R. 351 repeals language
in Section 4(f)(2) of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits the
imposition of voting qualifications or procedures which
discriminate against language minorities.29 Among other
things, by repealing this key protection, H.R. 351 could
prevent language minorities from being able to challenge
actions designed to dilute their voting power, such as using
``at large'' districts to minimize minority language voting
strength.30 In addition, since section 3 of H.R. 351
deletes various important cross-references to Section 4(f)
throughout the Voting Rights Act, it could eliminate the
requirement that jurisdictions having a previous record of
discrimination against language minorities pre-clear changes in
their voting procedures,31 and terminate the authority of
federal examiners and observers to enforce voting guarantees
with regard to minority language citizens.32 By repealing
these provisions, a Republican party which purports to be
against discrimination will allow the imposition of measures
which intentionally discriminate against language minorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ''No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or
standard, practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any
State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any
citizens of the United States to vote because he is a member of a
language minority group.'' 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973b (4)(f)(2).
\30\ See, Letter from Andy Fois, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, to the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, House
Judiciary Committee, (June 11, 1996) (``H.R. 351 appears to eliminate
entirely the nationwide ban on discriminatory election practices
against members of language minority groups. This could prevent members
of language minority groups from being able to challenge vote dilution,
such as that found unlawful by the court in Gomez v. City of
Watsonville, 863 F.2nd 1407 (9th Cir. 1988); cert. denied, 489 U.S.
1080 (1989) (successful challenge by Hispanics to city at-large
election system)'').
\31\ Id. (``H.R. 351 would also raise a host of questions about the
coverage under section 5 of the Act [relating to preclearance of
changes to voting procedures] that became covered as a result of the
1975 changes to the Act.'').
\32\ Id. (``H.R. 351 also appears to eliminate the availability of
Federal Voting examiners and observers [under section 6 and 8 of the
Act] to protect individuals from being denied the right to vote because
they are members of language minorities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The minority language assistance provisions offer a low cost,
efficient means of safeguarding voting rights
The minority language assistance provisions of the Voting
Rights Act constitute a low cost and efficient method of
ensuring the Constitutional right to vote. The Government
Accounting Office has found that the average cost of providing
written language assistance in elections is negligible, costing
an average of 2.9% of election expenses or less.33
Seventy-nine percent of the jurisdictions responding to this
study reported no costs in providing bilingual oral assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Bilingual Voting Assistance:
Costs of Administering During the November, 1984 General Election
(1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The County of Los Angeles, the only jurisdiction in the
nation required by the Voting Rights Act to provide voting
assistance in more than two languages, reported that during the
1994 elections only 2% of its $15 million budget was spent on
providing bilingual voting materials and assistance. The New
York City Board of Elections reported that the cost of
providing bilingual materials in Chinese and Korean for the
1991 City Council elections was only $3,300.34 Wherever
possible, the Justice Department seeks to keep the costs of
minority language assistance at a minimum, working with
minority language communities to develop flexible, low cost
means of complying with the law.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Voting Rights Act: Bilingual Education, Expert Witness Fees,
and Presley: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, 102nd Cong.,
2nd Sess. at 296 (1992).
\35\ See, A Bill to Amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Hearings
on H.R. 351 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of House Comm. on
the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. at 14-15 (1996) (Statement of
Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division),
[Hereinafter, ``1996 House Hearings.''] For example, a program adopted
by Alameda, County, California with the assistance of the Justice
Department provides bilingual election information for some 12,000
Chinese-speaking citizens without requiring the hiring of any new poll
workers and uses efficient and flexible targeting of electoral
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite its low cost, the benefits of minority language
assistance are immense. According to the 1990 census, for
example, in Cook County, Illinois, 87,977 voting age Hispanics
lack sufficient English fluency to participate in English only
elections; in Queens County, New York, 19,162 Chinese American
voting age citizens also lack such fluency. In Los Angeles
County, 39,886 Chinese American voting age citizens, and
265,350 Hispanic voting age citizens are limited-English
proficient.36 Repealing the minority language provisions
of the Voting Rights Act will disenfranchise these and hundreds
of thousands language minority citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Repeal of the minority language provisions will not result in any
significant increase in English language proficiency
One of the great red herrings of the legislative debate
surrounding the minority language provisions of the Voting
Rights Act is the assertion by supporters of H.R. 351 that such
language assistance should be unnecessary because proficiency
in English is a prerequisite to citizenship. This belies the
fact that English proficiency is not required for citizenship
if the applicant is over 50 years of age and has lived in the
U.S. over 20 years, or if the applicant is over 55 years old
and has been in the country for more than 15 years.37 More
significantly many native born American citizens grow up
speaking languages other than English. This includes Native
Americans,38 Alaska Natives, Puerto Ricans and citizens
residing in Guam and other U.S. territories without an English
language heritage. Moreover, Hispanic children who grow up with
Spanish as their first language are often educated in inferior
schools and are frequently unable to obtain proficiency in
English.39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1423(b)(2).
\38\ It is the declared policy of the U.S. government pursuant to
the Native American Languages Act, to encourage the use and
preservation of Native American languages. The Act specifically
recognizes that the use of Native American languages should not be
restricted in any public proceeding. See 25 U.S.C. secs. 2901, 2904.
\39\ A study by the Civil Rights Commission found that Mexican
Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans in the Southwest did
not receive the benefits of public education at a rate equal to their
Caucasian counterparts, and were denied equal educational opportunities
in some situations. The Senate Judiciary Committee also found that high
illiteracy rates in language minority communities was not due to mere
happenstance, but was a result of the failure of the state to provide
equal educational opportunities to members of language minority groups.
See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years
After (1975); See also U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Ethnic
Isolation of Mexican Americans in Public Schools in the Southwest
(1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even to the extent a naturalized citizen is able to pass a
citizenship test given in English, this does not mean he or she
is able to readily understand the lengthy and complex ballot
initiatives which have become so prevalent in recent years. And
it is no answer to respond that such initiatives can be
explained by the friends or family of the minority language
citizen. As Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) noted during Committee
consideration, it is often difficult for family members to
explain such initiatives in the absence of importing their own
political or partisan bias.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.R. 351, Transcript at
86, July 16, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
It is a sad statement that at a time when voter
participation remains unacceptably low, some in Congress could
support legislation that further deters our citizens from
voting. It is even more shameful to selectively raise the
barriers to full voter participation for minority language
citizens. Such citizens contribute fully to our society, pay
taxes and fight and die for our country. They, no less than all
of our other citizens, are entitled to participate in our
democracy by exercising their right to vote.
Although the focus of the debate surrounding this
legislation has been on the use of foreign languages by
immigrants, in reality, the core of the issue concerns the
Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens--both
native born as well as naturalized-- whose first language is
not English. Limiting the voting rights of such citizens will
add little to their incentives to become proficient in English,
but will significantly increase their alienation from our
society. The reality is that today's immigrants are already
learning English at a rate equal to or faster than previous
generations.41 If the proponents of H.R. 351 were truly
interested in increasing understanding of the English language,
they would seek to enhance the availability of English as a
Second Language (ESL) classes--which face long waiting lists
around the nation.42 In our view, H.R. 351 represents
little more than a desperate effort by Republicans to find yet
another divisive wedge issue deep into an election year--as
Representative Schroeder noted, ``to keep hate alive.'' 43
Instead of disparaging minority and Native American languages
and limiting voting rights, we should be celebrating our
diversity and tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ K. McCarthy & R. Burchiaga Valdez, ``Current and Future
Effects of Mexican Immigration in California,'' (1986); C. Veltman,
``The Future of Spanish Language in the United States,'' (1988); A.
Califa, ``Declaring English the Official Language: Prejudice Spoken
Here,'' 24 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 293, 314 (1989).
\42\ In Los Angeles, the demand for ESL classes is so great that
some schools operate 24 hours per day, and 50,000 students are on the
waiting lists city-wide; in New York City, an individual can wait up to
18 months for ESL classes. See 1996 House Hearings at 16, n. 35 (1996)
(Statement of Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division).
\43\ House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.R. 351, Transcript at
73, July 16, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Conyers, Jr.
Barney Frank.
Howard L. Berman.
John Bryant.
Jerrold Nadler.
Melvin L. Watt.
Zoe Lofgren.
Maxine Waters.
Pat Schroeder.
Bobby Scott.
Xavier Becerra.
Sheila Jackson Lee.