Voting in Navajo (fwd)

[phil cash cash]

June 05, 2006, 0:47 p.m.

Voting in Navajo
Reconsidering the Voting Rights Act.

By Peter Kirsanow
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzRjMWQ1ZDg0YzdhYjljZTZkMmZlM2ZiMDQ0ODA0ZGE=

Congress is on the road to reauthorizing certain core provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. Few pieces of legislation have matched the
act’s success. Fewer still have been the subject of as much
demagoguery.

The pre-clearance requirements contained in section 5, the minority
language requirements of Sections 4(f)(4) and 203, and the voting
examiner and observer authorizations of Sections 6 through 9 are set to
expire on August 6, 2007. Reauthorization of each of these provisions
raises a variety of substantive issues.

The voting-rights landscape has changed considerably since the act’s
passage more than 40 years ago. Some maintain that the types of rampant
racial discrimination and disenfranchisement the act was designed to
address have been either eliminated or reduced to the point that
portions of the act are obsolete or superfluous. Others contend that
the discrimination and disenfranchisement still exist, just in
cleverer, subtler forms. And there’s also a contingent that asserts,
irresponsibly, that the expiration of the act’s temporary provisions is
tantamount to a repeal of the 15th Amendment; i.e., the franchise will
be taken away from blacks. (As bizarre as that may seem, it’s a theme
that’s been surprisingly widespread among the black electorate over the
last several election cycles.)

Most of the public debate regarding reauthorization has centered upon
Section 5’s requiring that certain jurisdictions subject to Section 4’s
coverage formulas seek approval from the attorney general or the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing any
change in voting practices or procedures. But the immigration debate
that promises to occupy Congress this summer will also direct attention
to the minority language requirements in Sections 4(f) and 203, and
deservedly so.

Jurisdictions covered by sections (4)(f)(4) and 203 must provide voters
election information in at least one language other than English. The
coverage formulas for the two sections differ, but together their
minority language requirements cover hundreds of jurisdictions in more
than 30 states.

Spanish is by far the most common minority language required. Other
languages include American Indian languages, Alaskan native languages,
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, to name just a few. When a
minority language doesn’t exist in written form, such as the Native
American languages of Navajo and Zuni, oral information must be
provided.

The Justice department has filed approximately 20 lawsuits over the
years to enforce the minority language requirements. Most of the suits
pertain to jurisdictions in the southwest. The Justice department also
has interposed a number of Section 5 objections to language changes
adopted in jurisdictions such as Texas and Arizona. The department has
recently expanded its deployment of election monitors to evaluate
minority ballot language requirements.

The last time the General Accountability Office assessed the costs of
Section 203 bilingual voting assistance was in 1997. Costs varied by
jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions were able to reduce costs by using
volunteer bilingual poll workers. Large jurisdictions, however, are
often confronted with providing assistance in far more than just one
additional language. Los Angeles spent $1.1 million for multiple
language assistance in the 1996 elections alone.

It’s estimated that affected jurisdictions spend approximately 13
percent of all election expenses on minority language assistance.
Congress has heard testimony that minority language assistance
requirements waste limited election resources on materials that are of
marginal utility or that are very seldom used.

Another problem is that it doesn’t appear that any resources are
directed toward detecting and preventing fraud related to bilingual
election requirements. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that minority
language voters are steered to vote the “right” way, or are given
inaccurate or incomplete information by poll workers.

A more fundamental problem voiced by some critics of minority language
requirements is that they’re antithetical to basic notions of
participatory democracy: since some degree of English proficiency is a
requirement for U.S. citizenship and citizenship is a requirement for
voting, a voter should be presumed to be able to cast a ballot without
resort to a language other than English. Supporters of bilingual
ballots would argue that minimal English proficiency is insufficient to
comprehend all ballot language—the sur-reply being that ballot language
is equally opaque in any language, so stick to English.

It’s a safe bet that Congress won’t reconsider the use of bilingual
ballots. Nonetheless, because of concerns about effectiveness,
accuracy, cost, and fraud, the issue merits serious examination.

—Peter Kirsanow is a member of the National Labor Relations Board. He is
also a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. These comments do
not necessarily reflect the positions of either organization.