creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Linda Chavez
Linda Chavez
25 May 2012
Overreach by Unions in Wisconsin

The Wisconsin recall election of Republican Gov. Scott Walker is not going quite like the unions and the … Read More.

18 May 2012
Family Mysteries

Like many Americans, genealogy has been a keen interest of mine. I've had a good sense of where my family … Read More.

11 May 2012
Loose Lips Endanger Lives

The U.S. dodged another terrorist bullet when a would-be "underwear bomber" turned out to be a … Read More.

Bilingual Ballots Are a Bad Idea

Share Comment

At a time when many state and local governments cannot afford even necessary government programs, the Obama administration is about to force hundreds of jurisdictions to waste millions of dollars printing ballots in Spanish and other languages for voters who don't need them. Worse, some of these bilingual ballots may be used fraudulently to encourage people who are not citizens to vote illegally in next year's election.

A perverse element of the Voting Rights Act makes the whole scheme possible, and, unfortunately, not even Republicans have been willing to challenge it.

Under the act, jurisdictions whose population includes at least 5 percent of voting-age citizens who have limited English proficiency must provide ballots and other voting materials in other languages. Currently, about 500 jurisdictions are required to do so.

I have repeatedly testified before Congress against this provision. As I have argued, there are exceedingly few persons who are actually eligible to vote who can't understand English. English proficiency among U.S.-born Hispanics is virtually universal. And even among naturalized citizens, English proficiency is rarely a problem, since demonstrating English proficiency is required to become a U.S. citizen.

So how is it that so many jurisdictions end up having to provide materials in Spanish, Chinese and other languages, when so few eligible voters really need them?

It has to do with the way the government determines who is English-proficient and who isn't.

The Census Bureau, which is charged under the Voting Rights Act with determining which jurisdictions will be required to print bilingual voting materials, uses a remarkably dubious methodology to determine how many citizens are not proficient in English. Since 1982, the bureau on its census forms has counted those who are members of so-called language minorities and who say they speak English "well" as having limited proficiency. Doing so in 1982 tripled the number of jurisdictions forced to provide bilingual ballots.

In many places, these bilingual materials just sit unused during elections — a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere.

A 1997 General Accounting Office report noted that the printing of bilingual material accounted for half the election costs in those jurisdictions covered. And an earlier GAO study found that in most jurisdictions required to print bilingual materials, not a single person requested them. Could there be a more egregious waste of public funds?

But the greater danger is that unscrupulous groups sometimes use these materials to facilitate voting by non-citizens. As I have testified, multiple instances of voter fraud have involved non-citizens voting — by using bilingual ballots — from Hawaii to Georgia.

So what can be done? The best thing would be to repeal the onerous provision — but not even a Republican-controlled Congress has been willing to take on that fight. Short of repeal, the very least that should be done is stopping the Census Bureau from inflating the number of jurisdictions required to provide bilingual materials based on phony limited-English-proficient numbers.

The current chairmen of the House subcommittees charged with overseeing enforcement of the Voting Rights Act's bilingual provisions have asked the assistant attorney general for civil rights and the head of the bureau to abandon the flawed methodology now being used. In a letter this week, Reps. Trent Franks and Trey Gowdy urged the bureau to adopt the common-sense approach of considering anyone who says they speak English "well" on the Census form as English-proficient.

At least this standard would result in fewer unnecessary bilingual ballots from being printed. But the only way to stop this nonsense is to eliminate the requirement for bilingual voting materials altogether. Furthermore, there is another reason to oppose them: they balkanize our nation.

Our original national motto is "E pluribus unum" — out of many, one. While we come from all over the globe, we are united as Americans. This unity means that we hold certain things in common. We celebrate the same democratic values, cherish our many freedoms, and champion equality under the law. Our common bonds must also include an ability to communicate with one another through a common language: English.

In our struggling economy, there is no better time than now to stop wasting money on bilingual ballots.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
The only reason Obama wants them printed is so illegals can vote illegally. Sad state of affairs. Great aticle and keep up the good work!
Comment: #1
Posted by: Charlie
Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:20 PM

What can I do to turn this around.....I'm so sick and tired of going into a store and hear them announce in Spanish !
Now they are putting the sale signs in SPANISH ! This is AMERICA ! I want it back ! I want them gone ! I want B.O. impeached ! How can we get this done !?!?!?!?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Corrine LaRock
Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:00 PM
I am 68 years old. I graduated from college in 1964 and tried to register to vote (at age 21 - the law). When I went to sign up, my old girl scout leader greeted me with congratulations about graduating from college. She then told me that I had to go home and produce my HS graduation or college record, so I could sign up to vote. As she explained, I needed to prove I could read and write in English. Home I went and returned with the requirements and I was legally signed up.

This did not happen in the South - this was in a suburb within 20 miles north of New York City in a mixed community with a good school system that served all it's citizens.

What has happened to our country? During Obama's campaign people voted two or three times in different counties in different states.

I should not be surprised because during JFK's election I was dating someone whose father was influential in the democratic party and the father often bragged to me about how many people voted democratic from the cemetary. This was in the area around Scranton, PA. I also graduated with someone who got a teaching job in Scranton and as he described it to me - the "bag man" used to arrive at his place of residence whenever he got a pay check. In other words, he had to "buy" his job, otherwise he would not have had one.

Sad to say, some things never change.

thanks for listening.

Comment: #3
Posted by: Mary
Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:32 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Linda Chavez
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

19 Nov 2010 Travesty of Justice

5 Nov 2010 A Cautionary Note for GOP in Tuesday's Election

18 Apr 2008 All God's Children