Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:14:47 -0500
From: Dennis Baron
Subject: arizona english only struck down (again?)
here's the web site for the article--
http://www.azcentral.com:80/news/0428english.shtml
__________________________________
Arizona court strikes down
English-only law
State high court says law is unconstitutional
By Paul Davenport
The Associated Press
April 28, 1998
PHOENIX -- The Arizona
Supreme Court on Tuesday
struck down as unconstitutional a voter-approved law requiring
that
official state and local business be conducted only in English.
Several court challenges left the measure in legal limbo since
voters
approved it in 1988 as an amendment to the Arizona Constitution.
A different challenge than the one decided Tuesday was left
unresolved last year when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule
on it.
The state Supreme Court ruled the law violates free-speech rights
under the U.S. Constitution of the public, public employees and
elected officials.
"The amendment adversely affects non-English-speaking persons
and impinges on their ability to seek and obtain information and
services from government," the opinion said.
Also, because the measure "chills First Amendment rights that
government is not otherwise entitled to proscribe," it also
violates
the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause,
the opinion added.
Opponents of the measure branded it as racist, while supporters
called it common sense and promised to appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
State Sen. Pete Rios, a Hayden Democrat who was among the
plaintiffs in the case decided Tuesday, said the measure's
supporters played on unjustified fears of those who cannot speak
other languages.
"There is no movement in the state of Arizona to replace English
as
the official language of this state," Rios said. "People accept
that
English is the official language of this state."
Robert D. Park, a Prescott activist who campaigned for the law's
passage and intervened in the court cases to defend it, said he
would appeal in federal court, hopefully directly to the Supreme
Court.
"The First Amendment applies to private speech, not government
speech. What they're saying here now is that ... a government
employee has a right to choose what language to do business in,"
Park said. "That is totally unacceptable."
The state high court said it was expressing no opinion on the
constitutionality of less restrictive English-only provisions nor
discussing the legality of efforts that are limited to promoting
English.
"We also emphasize that nothing in this opinion compels any
Arizona governmental entity to provide any service in a language
other than English," the opinion said.
Arizona is among at least 21 states that have enacted official
English
laws, though the Arizona version is more restrictive than most.
Most
of the others are largely symbolic, with several merely stating
that
English is the state's official language.
The Arizona measure required the state and its political
subdivisions
to "act in English and no other language" and prohibited them
from
making laws or policies that required the use of a language other
than English. Also, no government document "shall be valid,
effective or enforceable unless it is in the English language."
It allowed exceptions to comply with federal law, to protect the
rights of crime victims and defendants, to protect public health
and
safety and to teach students in bilingual education.
The court rejected arguments by defenders of the law that it
related
only to official acts of government and would not apply to such
things as conversations between legislators and constituents.
The opinion was written by retired Justice James Moeller and
joined by Justices Thomas A. Zlaket, Charles E. Jones and Stanley
G. Feldman.
Justice Frederick J. Martone wrote a separate opinion in which he
agreed with the results but expressed reservations about
unresolved
legal issues in the case.
A U.S. District Court tossed the law out as unconstitutional, and
the
ruling was upheld by the federal Court of Appeals. But the U.S.
Supreme Court sent the issue back to state courts on a
technicality:
the state employee who had filed that suit later left her
government
job.
Attorney General Grant Woods' office had defended the law as
constitutional because it was limited in scope, but an aide said
Woods welcomed the latest ruling.
"It's probably a good thing because we didn't need English only
anyway," Woods spokeswoman Karie Dozer said.
Stephen Montoya, the lawyer who challenged the law, did not
immediately return a call Tuesday. He argued in November in court
that the measure was "profoundly racist" and unconstitutional.
"It is something that exclusively falls upon the Native Americans
and
the Asian-Americans and the Hispanic-Americans and does not fall
upon the majority of people," Montoya said then.
________________________________________
Dennis Baron, Head phone: 217-333-2390
Department of English fax: 217-333-4321
University of Illinois email: debaron[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]uiuc.edu
608 S. Wright Street http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baron
Urbana, IL 61801