|
| ||
|
|
(12/7/2005)
Ruling Requires Ballot Initiatives in Multiple Languages Decision called the latest activist opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals In a ruling that could have far-reaching implications in state elections, a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled before Thanksgiving that the recall election of Santa Ana school board member Nativo Lopez was invalid because the privately circulated petitions supporting the recall were not made available in Spanish. Following the Feb. 2003 election, three Spanish-speaking residents of the district claimed they had not understood the petition they signed because it was in English. Lopez, who was recalled by more than a 2-1 margin, had come under fire for repeatedly trying to water down the state’s English immersion requirement for schoolchildren learning English. “Once again, the Ninth Circuit has decided to impose its own out-of-the-mainstream policy positions on the country,” explained Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of the Board of U.S. English. “This decision will mean that when citizens seek to put an issue on a statewide ballot, they will be forced to circulate their petitions in up to five languages. The decision reflects a naked hostility to English as the nation’s common language.” The ruling, which rested on 1975 amendments to the federal Voting Rights Act requiring governments to provide certain election materials in foreign languages, is sharply at odds with the rulings of other federal courts. The Tenth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit both ruled in 1988 that the law’s requirements are not triggered when private parties circulate petitions seeking to place issues on a statewide ballot. The decisions of Ninth Circuit are frequently at odds with other federal courts, including a widely criticized decision ruling the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional. “This decision is out of line with both other federal courts and the American people,” continued Mujica. “I have faith that the Supreme Court will overturn this misguided decision and rein in the divisive trend of multilingualism in government.”
| |
|
| ||
