**Oppose the Multilingual Voting Mandate in the Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization (H.R. 9)**

Dear Colleague:

Almost a half-century ago, the 1960s were an important time for change
of the people in this country. Americans were making new discoveries and
attempting to correct social wrongs. The Voting Rights Act (VRA), was
once meant to stop southern states from refusing blacks the right to
vote. Today it requires voting materials to be printed in foreign
languages even though immigrants must prove they know English in order
to become citizens.

These multilingual mandates in the Voting Rights Act were later added to
the VRA and are set to expire in 2007. They require certain localities
to print multilingual ballots regardless of whether they are used.
Recently, the House Judiciary Committee debated my amendment to allow
the mandate to expire.

Multilingual ballots divide our country, increase the risk of voter
error and fraud and burden taxpayers. If we want to demolish modern-day
obstacles and bring people from all backgrounds into our voting process
to communicate with one another, we must unify our country instead of
driving a wedge between cultures.

Millions of new immigrants come here to pursue the American dream every
year. For generations, immigrants have understood that learning English
is critical to preventing their isolation in a linguistic enclave and
helps them assimilate into society so they can pursue that dream.

Reauthorizing the multilingual voting mandate for 25 years contradicts
our immigration law because knowledge of English is a condition for
naturalization. Since 1907, Congress has required candidates for
naturalization to demonstrate *"an understanding of the English
language, including an ability to read, write, and speak English in
ordinary usage in the English language"* (8 USC 1423).

Letting multilingual ballot requirements expire does not mean those
needing language assistance won't receive it. Every citizen deserves to
cast an informed ballot, and this is the right approach for voters who
have difficulty understanding voting materials in English. Voters who
need language assistance are already allowed to bring their interpreter
into the voting booth.

Current law states: "*Any voter who requires assistance to vote by
reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write* *may be
given assistance by a person of the voter's choice. . .*" This law
allows people who are not able to read an English language ballot to
have assistance in the voting booth. This approach is preferable to the
temporary requirements in the VRA because it puts the burden to
understand English ballots on U.S. citizens exercising their right to
vote, not on taxpayers. It also allows the voter to choose who will help
him or her. 

Multilingual ballots increase the risk of election errors and fraud. For
example, in 2000, six voting sites in Flushing, N.Y., printed ballots in
Chinese with the names of the political parties reversed. Several
thousand voters cast their votes using these erroneous ballots. You can
imagine the disastrous potential of these errors. Disregarding the large
chance for error threatens the integrity of our democratic process.

Further, multilingual ballots cost taxpayers millions of dollars because
localities are required to translate and purchase additional election
materials that, in many cases, are never used. Almost 300 counties in 30
states are required to have such materials available, regardless of
whether they are requested.

Our laws must be updated to reflect the responsibilities of citizenship
and the direction of our country's destiny as the world's greatest
melting pot. If we expect to thrive as a growing American culture, our
federal laws must direct us to that end. We must not continue to simply
renew outdated laws.

Sincerely,

/s

STEVE KING

Member of Congress