U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–505 PDF 2006

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS

(PART II)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 9 AND NOVEMBER 10, 2005

Serial No. 109–78

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel 

HILARY FUNK, Counsel 

KIMBERLY BETZ, Full Committee Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 9, 2005

WITNESSES 

Page 

Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Executive Director, National Congress of American 

Indians 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 3

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5

Mr. K.C. McAlpin, Executive Director, ProEnglish 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 67

Mr. James Thomas Tucker, Attorney, Ogletree Deakins, P.C., Adjunct Professor, Barrett Honors College at Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 76

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 78

Mr. Juan Cartagena, General Counsel, Community Service Society 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 134

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 137

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution .......................................................................................................... 177

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on 

the Constitution ................................................................................................... 177

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 179

Inserted into the Record by Mr. Chabot on November 18, 2005: 

Prepared Statement of Chris Norby, Supervisor, Fourth District, Orange 

County Board of Supervisors ....................................................................... 184

Prepared Statement of Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational 

Fund ............................................................................................................... 199

Voting Rights Cases Brought on Behalf of American Indians and/or Interpreting the Voting Rights Act re: Indian Interests. From Jennifer Robinson, Daniel McCool, and Susan Olson: Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights Act, and the Right to Vote. Forthcoming. Cambridge University Press, 2006 ...................................................................... 259

(1)

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS 

(Part II) 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pusuant to notice, at 5:10 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Chabot 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order. 

Okay. We want to thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I’m Steve 

Chabot, the Chairman. This is our eighth in a series of hearings 

relative to the Voting Rights Act and its reauthorization. 

This is the second hearing we’ve had here this afternoon. The 

Chair would request and ask unanimous consent that we waive 

opening statements from Members up here and get right to the 

panel. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I will move directly then to the introduction of our panel of distinguished witnesses here this afternoon, soon to be this evening. 

Our first witness will be Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. As Executive 

Director, Ms. Johnson is responsible for monitoring all Federal policy issues that affect tribal governments, coordinating communication among tribal governments, and overseeing consensus-based 

policy developments among NCAI’s 250-member tribal governments. 

Prior to joining NCAI, Ms. Johnson served as Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Native American Programs at the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development; was Executive Director of the 

Tlingit Haida Regional—I apologize if I’ve butchered that pronunciation—Housing Authority, headquartered in Juneau, Alaska; 

served as Chairperson of the National American Indian Housing 

Counsel, and was appointed to the National Commission on American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing. 

In addition, Ms. Johnson serves on a number of boards and national executive committees, and continues to be involved in American Indian youth development, having served as the Director of a 

Native Youth Culture Camp for 13 years. 

2

Ms. Johnson is a member of the Raven-Sockeye Clan of the— would you pronounce that tribe? I want to make sure I don’t mispronounce it again. Is it? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Tlingit. 

Mr. CHABOT. Tlingit. Okay. Tribe. Thank you very much. 

Our second witness will be Mr. K.C. McAlpin. 

Mr. McAlpin currently serves as the Executive Director of 

ProEnglish, a national non-profit group dedicated to preserving 

English as the common language, and to making it the official language of the United States. 

Prior to his public interest work with ProEnglish, Mr. McAlpin 

worked for an oil company in South America, Central America, and 

the Caribbean, and served as a financial analyst for a Fortune 500 

company, and as an international controller for a high-tech company. 

Mr. McAlpin is a frequent guest on radio and television, including Good Morning America, Fox Morning News, CNN News, CSPAN, Both Sides with Jesse Jackson, and the Lou Dobbs Show. 

We welcome you here also, Mr. McAlpin. 

Our third witness is Mr. James Tucker. Mr. Tucker is a former 

trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, where he focused on voting issues. 

While at the Department, Mr. Tucker was responsible for litigating several redistricting cases, including those in Georgia and 

North Carolina, as well as cases involving section 203, Federal Observer Coverage and Contempt Proceedings. 

Mr. Tucker also has litigation experience in employment cases 

brought under Federal statute, such as the title VII of the Civil 

Rights of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave 

Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Mr. Tucker is a former law clerk to Chief U.S. District Judge 

Lawrence Paul of the North District of Florida, and is a former Air 

Force veteran, serving on AWACS during Desert Storm, operations 

in the Persian Gulf, and in the active reserves as an Assistant 

Staff Judge Advocate. We welcome you here also, Mr. Tucker. 

Our fourth and final witness is Mr. Juan Cartagena. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Thank you. 

Mr. Cartagena is General Counsel for the Community Service Society, a position he has held since 1991. As General Counsel, Mr. 

Cartagena is responsible for directing the legal department and 

public interest litigation on behalf of the poor in the areas of voting 

rights, education, housing, health, and environmental issues. 

Prior to his work at CSS, Mr. Cartagena was the Legal Director 

in the New York Office of the Department of Puerto Rican Affairs 

in the U.S. for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and served as 

an attorney for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education 

Fund. 

Mr. Cartagena has also served as a municipal court judge in Hoboken, New Jersey, and is a part-time lecturer at Rutgers University, Department of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Caribbean Studies. 

And we welcome you here also, Mr. Cartagena. 

I also want to note that without objection, all Members will have 

5 legislative days to submit additional materials for the record, and 

3

I also note that Mr. Nadler has asked unanimous consent—will be 

granted unanimous consent to enter his written statement into the 

record, as all other Members will also have that opportunity should 

they chose to do so. 

Mr. CHABOT. For those who may not have testified, I’ll be very 

brief in this explanation. 

We have what’s called the 5-minute rule. There are two devices 

there that will have lights on them shortly. For 4 minutes, the 

green light will be on. The yellow light will come on. That let’s you 

know you have 1 minute to wrap up. And the red light will come 

on, we’d ask you to wrap up by then, if possible. We won’t gavel 

you down immediately. But try to stay within that as much as possible. 

We also are limited to 5 minutes, and we apologize profusely for 

running late, but we had votes during the last hearing, and that 

ran us behind. And we also have three votes coming up here in a 

very short time, so we may be further delayed. And again, please 

accept our sincere apologies for that. 

For those of you who may not have also testified before, it is the 

policy of this court to swear in all witnesses, so if you would please 

rise and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. CHABOT. All witnesses have indicated in the affirmative, and 

we’re now ready for our first witness, so, Ms. Johnson, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

Ms. JOHNSON. Kus’een yu xat du wasaak. Lu kaa adi aya xat. 

Kogwaantan yadei. Veith Lit daax. 

In my own language, Tlingit, I introduced myself and my Tlingit 

name is Kus’een, and I come from the village outside of Haines, 

Alaska, Chilkoot, and I come from the Raven-Sockeye house. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee, for me being able to testify on behalf of the National 

Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights 

Fund. 

I appreciate this opportunity to express our support for the reauthorization of all the provisions in the Voting Rights Act that are 

scheduled to expire in 2007, and in particular, I’m going to testify 

today on the reauthorization of section 203, the Continuing Need 

for the Minority Language Assistance Provisions, which recognizes 

the indigenous languages throughout Indian country. 

Since 1944, the National Congress of American Indians has 

worked diligently to strengthen and protect and inform the public 

and Congress on the governmental rights of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. 

NCAI is the oldest and the largest national organization addressing American Indians’ interests, representing over 250-member 

tribes throughout the U.S. 

Since 1971, the Native Americans Rights Fund has provided 

legal and technical service to individuals, groups, and organizations 

on major issues facing Native people. NARF has become one of the 

4

largest Native non-profit legal advocacy organizations in the 

United States. 

Last week, at the NCAI Annual Session in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

tribal leaders throughout the country passed a resolution calling 

upon Congress to reauthorize and expand the Minority Language 

Provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This resolution is attached and 

submitted as part of my written record. 

Native Americans were historically disenfranchised people. Although Native Americans have inhabited North America longer 

than other segment of the American society, they were the last 

group to receive the right to vote when the United States finally 

made them citizens in 1924. And even after 1924, certain States 

with large Native populations barred Native Americans from voting 

by setting discriminatory voter registration requirements; for example, various States denied Indians the right to vote because they 

were under guardianship, or Indians were denied the right to vote 

because they could not prove that they were civilized by moving off 

the reservation and renouncing their tribal ties. 

New Mexico was that last State to remove all expressed legal impediments to voting for Native Americans in 1962, 3 years before 

the passage of the Voting Rights Act. 

In addition, Native Americans have experienced many of the discriminatory tactics that kept the African-Americans in the South 

from exercising the franchise. 

With the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Congress took 

the first steps necessary to start the process to remedying the history of discrimination and disenfranchisement. While we have 

made tremendous progress in the last 40 years, we still have a long 

ways to go. 

When the Voting Rights Act came up for reauthorization in 1975, 

Congress took another major step in adding section 203 to the Voting Rights Act. 

Congress did so based upon its finding that educational inequality and racial discrimination prohibited full participation in the 

democratic process by Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and other 

language minority groups. 

In 1992, Congress moved forward again, passing the Voting 

Rights language amendments, the provisions which are the subject 

of today’s hearing. 

At that time, Congress heard testimony from members of—a 

number of leaders across Indian country, all whom testified the importance of the Minority Language Provisions to Native communities. NCAI and NARF offered joint testimony in 1992, as well as 

documented the persistent educational inequalities and discrimination in voting that persists today. 

While significant progress has been made in franchising Native 

Americans, the need for section 203 has not diminished in the 

years since Congress has added that section to the Voting Rights 

Act. 

The value of section 203 to Indian country cannot be overstated. 

Today, to the new determinations released by the Census Bureau 

in July of 2002, 88 jurisdictions in 17 States are covered jurisdictions that need to provide language assistance to American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. 

5

Section 203 has resulted in the filing of numerous minority language assistance cases involving American Indians and the vast 

majority being resolved by consent decree with covered jurisdictions agreeing to provide the necessary translations of written 

voter materials or the necessary oral assistance in polling places. 

While no one knows exactly how many Native language speakers 

live in the U.S. today, the language provisions of 203 continue to 

be critical for many Native communities. 

In many Native communities, tribal business is conducted exclusively or primarily in their own Native language, while many people, particularly our elders, speak English only as a second language. Even if they have English language skills, many Indian people still have and say that they feel more comfortable speaking in 

their own Native language and are better to understand the complicated ballot issues in their Native language. 

Furthermore, it is the policy of the Federal Government, as expressed by the Native American Languages Act of 1990, to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages. 

The Native American Language Act was the first and may be the 

only Federal law to guarantee the right of language minority 

groups to use its language in public proceedings. Disenfranchising 

Native Americans by failing to provide language assistance in the 

electoral process to those who need it would certainly violate the 

statutory right. 

Section 203 ensures Native people, particularly our elders, many 

who speak English poorly, have access to the ballot box. 

As we continue today, I hope that you continue to encourage and 

to be able to ensure that the Native language provisions, or the 

language provisions in section 203 are maintained. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE JOHNSON

INTRODUCTION

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the 

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Native American Rights 

Fund (NARF), I appreciate this opportunity to express our support for reauthorization of all of the provisions in the Voting Rights Act that are scheduled to expire 

in 2007; and in particular, to testify today in support of reauthorization of Section 

203 and the continuing need for the minority language assistance provisions 

throughout Indian country. 

Since 1944, the National Congress of American Indians has worked diligently to 

strengthen, protect and inform the public and Congress on the governmental rights 

of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. NCAI is the oldest and largest national 

organization addressing American Indian interests, representing more than 250 

member tribes throughout the United States. Since 1971, the Native American 

Rights Fund has provided legal and technical services to individuals, groups and organizations on major issues facing Native people. NARF has become one of the largest Native non-profit legal advocacy organizations in the United States, dedicating 

its resources to the preservation of tribal existence, the protection of tribal natural 

and cultural resources, the promotion of human rights and the accountability of governments to Native Americans. 

TESTIMONY—SECTION 203 SHOULD BE REAUTHORIZED

Last week at the NCAI Annual Session in Tulsa, Oklahoma, tribal leaders from 

across the nation passed a Resolution calling upon the Congress to re-authorize and 

expand the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This resolution 

is attached and submitted for the record. Native Americans were an historically 

6

1See e.g., U.S. v. Bernalillo County, No. 98–156–BB/LCS (D.N.M. July 1, 2003); U.S. v. Arizona, No. 88–1989–PHX EHC (D.Ariz. May 22 1989, amended September 27, 1993); and U.S. 

v. San Juan County, No. C–83–1287 (D.Utah Oct. 11, 1990). 2 25 U.S.C. 2901, et seq. 

disenfranchised people. Although Native Americans have inhabited North America 

longer than any other segment of American-society, they were the last group to receive the right to vote when the United States finally made them citizens in 1924. 

Even after 1924, certain states with large native populations barred Native Americans from voting by setting discriminatory voter registration requirements. For example, various states denied Indians the right to vote because they were ‘‘under 

guardianship,’’ or Indians were denied the right to vote unless they could prove they were ‘‘civilized’’ by moving off of the reservation and renouncing their tribal ties. 

New Mexico was the last State to remove all express legal impediments to voting 

for Native Americans in 1962, three years before the passage of the Voting Rights 

Act. In addition, Native Americans have experienced many of the discriminatory 

tactics that kept African-Americans in the South from exercising the franchise. 

With the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Congress took the first necessary 

steps to start the process of remedying this history of discrimination and disenfranchisement. While we have made tremendous progress in the last 40 years, we still 

have a long way to go. When the Voting Rights Act came up for reauthorization in 

1975, Congress heard extensive testimony regarding voting discrimination suffered 

not just by African-Americans, but also by Hispanics, Asian-Americans and American Indians. As a result, Congress took another major step by adding section 203 

to the Voting Rights Act. Congress did so based on its finding that educational inequality and racial discrimination prohibited full participation in the democratic 

process by Native Americans, Alaskan Natives and other language minority groups. 

In 1992, Congress moved forward again, passing the Voting Rights Language Assistance Amendments—the provisions which are the subject of today’s hearing. 

Under the 1992 amendments, Congress strengthened the triggering mechanism of 

section 203 by adding a numerical threshold provision and by adding the so-called 

‘‘Indian trigger’’—wherein a state or political subdivision is ‘‘covered’’ if it contains 

all or any part of an Indian reservation where more than five percent of the American Indian or Alaskan Native voting age population are members of a single language minority and have limited English proficiency. In 1992, Congress heard testimony from a number of leaders from across Indian Country, all of whom testified 

about the importance of the minority language provisions to Native communities. 

NCAI and NARF offered joint testimony at that time as well and documented persistent educational inequities and discrimination in voting that persist today. In 

passing the 1992 Language Assistance Amendments, Congress clearly recognized 

the need for language assistance in American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. 

While significant progress has been made in enfranchising Native Americans, the 

need for Section 203 has not diminished in the years since Congress added that section to the Voting Rights Act. Historically disenfranchised, Native Americans continue to need and to use language assistance in the electoral process today. This 

assistance enables those who understand their own language better than they understand English to effectively participate in the democratic process. The value of 

Section 203 to Indian country cannot be overstated. Today, according to the new determinations released by the Census Bureau in July 2002, eighty-eight (88) jurisdictions in seventeen (17) states are covered jurisdictions that need to provide language 

assistance to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Section 203 has resulted in 

the filing of numerous minority language assistance cases involving American Indians, with the vast majority being resolved by consent decree with the covered jurisdictions agreeing to provide the necessary translations of written voter materials, 

or the necessary oral assistance at polling places.1

While no one knows exactly how many Native American language speakers live 

in the U.S. today, the language provisions of Section 203 continue to be critical for 

many Native communities. In many Native communities, tribal business is conducted exclusively or primarily in Native languages. Many Native people, particularly our elders, speak English only as a second language. Even if they have English 

language skills, many Indian people have said that they feel more comfortable 

speaking their Native language and are better able to understand complicated ballot 

issues in their Native language. Furthermore, it is the policy of the federal government, as expressed in the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (NALA) to ‘‘preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, 

practice, and develop Native American languages.’’ 2 The NALA was the first, and 

may be the only, federal law to guarantee the right of a language minority group 

7

to use its language in ‘‘public proceedings.’’ Disenfranchising Native Americans by 

failing to provide language assistance in the electoral process to those who need it 

would surely violate this statutory right. Section 203 ensures all Native people, particularly our elders, many of whom speak English poorly if at all, have access to 

the ballot box. At the same time, it recognizes the importance of preserving and 

honoring indigenous languages and cultures. 

Traditionally, voter participation rates by American Indians and Alaskan Natives 

have always been among the lowest of all communities within the United States. 

While voter registration and turnout by Native American voters is still below nonNative averages in many parts of the country, many Native communities have seen 

steady, even significant increases, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of Native American candidates who are being elected to local school boards, county commissions and state 

legislatures. 

In 2004, the National Congress of American Indians spearheaded a groundbreaking campaign to register and turn out a record number of American Indian and 

Alaskan Native voters. Known as ‘‘Native Vote 2004,’’ NCAI, in collaboration with 

various national and regional organizations, local tribal governments, urban Indian 

centers and, most important, many grassroots organizations throughout Indian 

country, coordinated an extensive national non-partisan effort to mobilize the Native 

vote and to ensure that every Native vote was counted. The culmination of the Native Vote 2004 efforts on November 2nd was a resounding moment for tribal governments nationwide, as it empowered Native voters and raised the profile of Native 

issues in the eyes of politicians. 

In the appendices to our testimony, we have provided a copy of our study: Native 

Vote 2004: A National Survey and Analysis of Efforts to Increase the Native Vote in 

2004 and the Results Achieved. To our knowledge, this report is the first of its kind 

in Indian country. This study provides background information, Native voter participation data and election results for eight states: Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin. Each assessment provides invaluable information regarding how the Voting Rights Act is working in Indian country, and the challenges that still lie ahead. 

We anticipate that the substance of this report will provide, in part, the evidentiary basis underlying the need to strengthen and extend the Voting Rights Act. 

At its essence, the research shows a direct correlation between focused localized 

commitments to increasing voter participation rates in Native communities and the 

actual increases that result. I submit to you that Section 203 is an essential component to ensuring the success of such focused localized commitments in our Native 

communities. Thank you.

8

ATTACHMENT 1


JJA0001.eps
9


JJA0002.eps
10


JJA0003.eps
11

ATTACHMENT 2


JJB0001.eps
12


JJB0002.eps
13


JJB0003.eps
14


JJB0004.eps
15


JJB0005.eps
16


JJB0006.eps
17


JJB0007.eps
18


JJB0008.eps
19


JJB0009.eps
20


JJB0010.eps
21


JJB0011.eps
22


JJB0012.eps
23


JJB0013.eps
24


JJB0014.eps
25


JJB0015.eps
26


JJB0016.eps
27


JJB0017.eps
28


JJB0018.eps
29


JJB0019.eps
30


JJB0020.eps
31


JJB0021.eps
32


JJB0022.eps
33


JJB0023.eps
34


JJB0024.eps
35


JJB0025.eps
36


JJB0026.eps
37


JJB0027.eps
38


JJB0028.eps
39


JJB0029.eps
40


JJB0030.eps
41


JJB0031.eps
42


JJB0032.eps
43


JJB0033.eps
44


JJB0034.eps
45


JJB0035.eps
46


JJB0036.eps
47


JJB0037.eps
48


JJB0038.eps
49


JJB0039.eps
50


JJB0040.eps
51


JJB0041.eps
52


JJB0042.eps
53


JJB0043.eps
54


JJB0044.eps
55


JJB0045.eps
56


JJB0046.eps
57


JJB0047.eps
58


JJB0048.eps
59


JJB0049.eps
60

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman’s time has 

expired. 

I’d like to explain what’s going on here. The bells indicate that 

we’ve been called to the floor for a series of votes. Unfortunately, 

those series of votes are going to extend over probably an hour’s 

period of time, so we have somewhat of a dilemma here. We could 

come back after an hour, which would inconvenience the panel obviously even more than they’ve already been inconvenienced. 

We’ve come up with possible plan, and what we have indicated, 

and I think the minority side is agreeable with this is that we 

would allow the witnesses to submit their testimony in writing. We 

would then have access to all that, read it, and then be able to submit questions to the panel, and if you all would be willing to get 

those questions back to us. 

The alternative to that is to come back or to have another hearing on another date, but we don’t want to inconvenience the panel 

there as well. 

And I would at this point yield to perhaps the Ranking Minority, 

Mr. Conyers, to perhaps get his input. I think the staff has indicated they were—they had talked to Mr. Nadler, and he’s agreeable 

to submitting in writing and not having another. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that procedure. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Is there—members of the witness panel okay 

with that? Would you be willing to submit in writing your statements? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. CHABOT. I think all the witnesses are indicating in the affirmative. We will then submit to you in writing our questions, and 

if you could get those responses back to them, they will all be entered into the record, just as if this had been done orally. 

I apologize for any inconvenience, but it would be inconvenient 

really any way we handled this at this point, and because of the 

lateness of the hour, I think probably this is the best solution 

under the circumstances. 

So if there’s no further business to come before this Committee, 

that will be the process that we’ll follow. And, again, I want to 

apologize to the panel, but we will do this in writing just as we 

would have done it orally had you been here. 

Mr. Cartagena? 

Mr. CARTAGENA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick question——

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Mr. CARTAGENA. —for clarification. Would it be possible for each 

one of us members of this panel to receive each other’s submission, 

because many times the questions that you will ask are——

Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARTAGENA. —informed by the positions taken by other 

members. 

Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely. And we’ll rather than have the questions come at you from different angles, we’ll have the staff get 

these all together so you get our questions all at one time together, 

and we’ll make sure that you all are provided with each other’s 

statements as well. 

I think Mr. Nadler is in agreement as well. 

61

Mr. NADLER. Yes. He’s in accord. 

Mr. CHABOT. Is in accord. So we’re all in agreement? So if there 

is no further business to come before the Committee, we’re adjourned. 

Thank you 

[Whereupon, at 5:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(63)

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS 

(Part II—Continued) 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Chabot 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come back to order. 

I, first of all, want to apologize again to our witness panel for 

being interfered with by the votes on the floor, which of course occurs periodically around here, but since we had two hearings on 

the Voting Rights Act scheduled yesterday, and the first one 

pushed into the second one, it made things, unfortunately, a little 

more awkward than they otherwise would have been. And I want 

to also indicate again that we had essentially come up with a procedure where we would submit questions in writing. The panel was 

gracious enough to be willing to come back and testify again today. 

I expect other members of the panel to arrive here shortly. 

We only have this room until 10 o’clock because there is already 

a previously scheduled hearing on the Subcommittee on Crime, and 

it is at 10 o’clock. 

When we ended yesterday, Ms. Johnson had already given her 

opening statement. We will now go to the other members of the 

witness panel who have already been sworn in. We had already 

waived opening statements up here and agreed, because of the 

shortness of time, that we would go immediately to questions after 

the statements. So without objection, we will continue that. 

And at this point, Mr. McAlpin, I will go to you for your opening 

statement. And again, it is a 5-minute opening statement. Thank 

you. 

TESTIMONY OF K.C. McALPIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PROENGLISH 

Mr. MCALPIN. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present our views on 

renewing the bilingual ballot provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 

ProEnglish is a national organization whose mission is to defend 

English as the common language of our country and to make it the 

official language at all levels of government. 

64

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership in the 

struggle to make English our official language, a position endorsed 

by 79 percent of voters and 81 percent of immigrants, according to 

the most recent poll. 

Bilingual ballots are a costly, unfunded mandate that function 

like a tax on English-speaking Americans. Two separate General 

Accounting Office reports to Congress found solid evidence that in 

most jurisdictions covered by sections 203 and 4(f)(4), bilingual ballots are hardly used, and where they are used, their use scarcely 

justifies the cost and effort needed to provide them. 

In my written testimony, which I ask that you include in the official Committee record, I give a number of reasons why we think 

the bilingual ballot, provisions of the Voting Rights Act should not 

be reauthorized, but in the time I have, I want to focus on four. 

First, the rationale for providing bilingual ballots is no longer 

valid. The reasons that persuaded Congress to add bilingual ballot 

provisions to the Voting Rights Act 10 years after it was enacted 

had nothing to do with voting rights discrimination; rather, supporters told Congress that certain language minority groups had 

not had access to equal educational opportunities in this country. 

Those were Alaska Natives, American Indians and American citizens of Asian or Hispanic descent. Backers said this lack of opportunity had caused these groups’ literacy rate to be below the national average, and argued that they needed help while the educational system caught up. This is why Congress intended bilingual 

ballots to be a temporary remedial measure. 

Thirty years later the driving factor behind the literacy rate of 

the two largest of these groups, Asians and Hispanics, has little to 

do with educational opportunities in this country. I want to make 

a distinction between these two groups and American Indians and 

Alaskan Natives, which I discuss in my written testimony. 

In 1975, the vast majority of our Hispanic and Asian citizens 

were Natives; today the situation has changed. Immigrants are 

now by far the biggest component in these groups and the dominant factor affecting their English literacy rates. 

Recent studies suggest that the main reason for the elevated 

school drop-out rates among these groups is the lack of educational 

opportunities they experienced in their Native countries before emigrating. It is wrong to impose extraordinary election costs on American taxpayers because of the voluntary decisions of millions of people to move here, and we see no justification for continuing a remedy whose reason for being is completely out of date. 

Second, bilingual ballots should not be necessary. For almost 100 

years, immigrants have been required to know English in order to 

naturalize. This is appropriate for a country whose Constitution 

and founding documents were written in English, whose three 

branches of government operate almost completely in English, and 

whose political life is conducted almost entirely in the English language. 

So why are we forcing States and counties to provide bilingual 

ballots for naturalized citizens who should be able to read and understand English? If people are circumventing the law and naturalizing without learning English, then it is their responsibility to 

65

deal with the consequences, not the responsibility of the American 

people. 

Bilingual ballots are also an affront to millions of naturalized 

American citizens who emigrated to this country, played by the 

rules, and made great sacrifices to learn English. 

Third, bilingual ballots and poll workers also increase the risk of 

election fraud. There is no doubt that language is an effective way 

to conceal illegal activity. From the Departments of Motor Vehicles 

in various States to the U.S. Prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, interpreters have been caught using language as a cover to break the 

law and even commit espionage. Bilingual voter outreach materials, voter registration forms, absentee ballots and the like all increase the risk that non-citizens will register and vote either accidentally or in deliberate violation of the law. In recent years there 

have been a growing number of cases in which noncitizens have 

been caught illegally registering and voting. 

Mr. Chairman, bilingual ballots also undermine our national 

unity. We are in the midst of the largest and most diverse flow of 

immigration in our Nation’s history. As the distinguished Chair of 

the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and a former Member 

of this House, the late Barbara Jordan, said in testifying to Congress, quote, cultural and religious diversity does not pose a threat 

to the national interest as long as public policies ensure civic unity. 

Removing incentives to learn English does not help ensure our 

civic unity; instead, such policies discourage assimilation and encourage the formation of linguistically isolated immigrant communities that are outside the mainstream of American life. The violence that has broken out in immigrant neighborhoods across 

France should be a wake-up call about the danger to a society 

when assimilation breaks down. 

Now, for the record, I want to say emphatically that my organization supports the right of all citizens to vote, but the relatively 

few citizens who cannot understand English have the same remedies to help them vote that millions of English-speaking illiterates 

have; they can request an absentee ballot and get help to understand it, they can take a crib sheet or premarked paper ballot with 

them when they vote, and they have the right to take an interpreter into the poll with them. The 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. These are remedies available to non-English-speaking 

voters, regardless of whether they live in a covered jurisdiction and 

regardless of whether or not they happen to be members of one of 

the covered groups. They are more than adequate to protect the 

right of qualified voters who have difficulty reading and understanding English to cast a ballot. 

Finally, I want to say that requiring citizens to vote using ballots 

in English discriminates against no one on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. No matter how you try, you cannot equate 

these terms with the language someone speaks. English is spoken 

as the first language by people of every race, every ethnicity and 

by dozens of national origins. English is the official language in 51 

different nations, most of which are located in Africa, Asia and the 

66

Caribbean. And there are countless examples of racial or ethnic 

groups as well as nations that speak many different languages. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present our 

views. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McAlpin follows:]

67

PREPARED STATEMENT OF K.C. MCALPIN


KCM0001.eps
68


KCM0002.eps
69


KCM0003.eps
70


KCM0004.eps
71


KCM0005.eps
72


KCM0006.eps
73


KCM0007.eps
74


KCM0008.eps
75


KCM0009.eps
76

Mr. CHABOT. Before we move to our next witness, I just wanted 

to recognize a distinguished gentleman that is with us here this 

morning, a former Member of the House of Representatives, Congressman John Buchanan from Alabama, who is a member of the 

National Commission on Voting Rights Act, and we welcome you, 

Representative Buchanan. 

And now we will move to our next witness. Mr. Tucker, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES TUCKER, ATTORNEY, OGLETREE 

DEAKINS, P.C., ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, BARRETT HONORS 

COLLEGE AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 

Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for your invitation to testify on a matter of critical importance to all Americans, reauthorization of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act that will expire in August of 2007. 

My comments will focus on sections 4(f)(4) and 203 of the act. 

The language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act received strong bipartisan support each time Congress previously 

considered them in 1975, 1982 and 1992. The same holds true 

today, as members of both parties and the Subcommittee have recognized by addressing the continuing need for these two sections 

nearly 2 years before they expire. 

I want to begin by briefly addressing the constitutionality of the 

language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, since that 

issue came up on Tuesday. The reason no one has challenged these 

provisions is simple: The United States Supreme Court resolved 

the issue 39 years ago in Katzenbach v. Morgan when it upheld 

section 4(e) of the act. The State of New York argued that section 

4(e) of the act was unconstitutional as applied to New York, which 

had passed an English language requirement for voting to give language minorities an incentive to learn English. 

The Court rejected that assertion, finding that Congress may 

have, quote, questioned whether denial of a right being so precious 

and fundamental in our society was a necessary or appropriate 

means of encouraging persons to learn English or furthering the 

goal of an intelligent exercise of the franchise. 

Katzenbach upheld the language assistance provisions as the 

valid exercise of congressional enforcement powers under the 14th 

and 15th amendments, which the Court recognize give, quote, the 

same broad powers expressed in the necessary and proper clause. 

In 1975, Congress relied upon section 4(e) as the foundation for 

sections 4(f)(4) and 203. Congress noted its constitutional exercise 

of its enforcement powers by expressly citing Katzenbach and the 

Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, a 1923 case in which the 

Court struck down a prohibition on English in public schools—I’m 

sorry, in languages other than English in public schools. 

As the Supreme Court observed in Meyer, quote, ‘‘the protection 

of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as those born with English on the tongue.’’ Congress 

agreed with this reasoning in enacting sections 4(f)(4) and 203. 

77

Now I would like to discuss the extent to which previously covered jurisdictions have fulfilled the congressional intent in those 

two sections. 

Congress previously commissioned GAO, in 1984 and in 1986, to 

examine this issue. The purpose of our study is to update the cost 

data collected by the two GAO studies and to determine the practice of public elections officials in providing oral and written language assistance. A total of 810 jurisdictions in 33 States were surveyed. Over half of all the jurisdictions in 31 States responded, 

making this the most comprehensive study of its kind ever conducted. 

Some critics have opposed section 203 because they believe it imposes high costs on local election officials. Their fears have not materialized. The costs of compliance were modest, if there are any 

costs at all. Of the jurisdictions reporting oral language assistance 

expenses, 59.1 percent report incurring no expense at all. Similarly, 

of the jurisdictions reporting written language material expenses, 

54.2 percent do not incur any additional costs. Of the jurisdictions 

reporting complete election expenses, 39.5 percent do not incur any 

added cost for either oral or written language assistance. 

Many covered jurisdictions report election practices that fall 

short of complying with the Voting Rights Act. The absence of bilingual oral language assistance in these jurisdictions can be a significant deterrent to limited English-proficient voters seeking to 

participate in elections. Sixty-nine responding jurisdictions do not 

report providing any assistance at all. 

For instance, less than half of the respondents report providing 

assistance for telephone inquiries from voters in all of the covered 

languages. Significantly, 57.1 percent of the responding jurisdictions report they do not have one full-time worker fluent in the covered language. Only 38.2 percent report having a bilingual coordinator who speaks the covered language and acts as a liaison with 

the covered language groups. Only 37.3 percent report that they 

consult with community organizations or individuals from the covered language groups about providing election assistance in those 

languages. 

Furthermore, even where jurisdictions provide the bilingual materials, many acknowledge not doing so for all materials. Most covered jurisdictions acknowledge they do not provide oral language 

assistance at all stages of the election process. Nearly two-thirds of 

responding jurisdictions do not require any confirmation of the language abilities of part-time poll workers who are supposed to be 

out there helping the voters. Two-thirds of the respondents reported that their poll worker training does not include information 

about the languages covered in the jurisdiction. Only 10.3 percent 

of the respondents reported voter assistance practices that are at 

least as protective as section 208. Despite falling short of what section 203 requires—and I see my time is expired, if I can have another minute to sum up. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection. 

Mr. TUCKER. Most election officials report that they support the 

provision. One respondent described language assistance as, quote, 

‘‘common sense;’’ others emphasize it as, quote, ‘‘inclusivity’’ and 

tendency to, quote, ‘‘make voters feel more comfortable coming to 

78

1 Voting Rights Act Language Assistance Amendments of 1992: Hearings on S. 2236 Before the 

Subcomm. On the Constitution of the Senate Comm. On the Judiciary [1992 hearings], 102d 

Cong., 2d Sess., S. HRG. 102–1066, at 134 (1992) (statement of Sen. Hatch). 2See Appendix A. 3See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973l(c)(3), 1973aa–1a(e). 4See 121 CONG. REC H4716 (daily ed. June 2, 1975) (statement of Rep. Edwards). When the 

1975 amendments were enacted, the Bureau of the Census defined the language minority 

groups in the following manner:

[T]he category of Asian American includes persons who indicated their race as Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, or Korean. The category of American Indian includes persons 

who indicated their race as Indian (American) or who did not indicate a specific race 

the polls knowing that there is help if it is needed.’’ One jurisdiction observes that, quote, ‘‘language assistance is extremely important in ensuring the integrity of the U.S. Election process and the 

legitimacy of government outcomes.’’ Many jurisdictions commend 

the Justice Department’s enforcement efforts. As another respondent observes, quote, ‘‘the Federal Government has done a lot to provide minority language assistance; much remains to be done.’’ Our study’s findings highlight the continuing need for language 

assistance. State and local election officials agree. Of the responding jurisdictions, 71.3 percent think that the Federal language assistance provision should remain in effect for public elections. For 

these reasons, I recommend in the strongest terms that the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including sections 4, 6, 

8 and 203, be reauthorized. 

Thank you very much for your attention. I will welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tucker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES THOMAS TUCKER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your invitation 

to testify on a matter of critical importance to all Americans: reauthorization of the 

temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act that will expire in August 2007. My 

comments will focus on Section 203 of the Act. The language assistance provisions 

of the Voting Rights Act received strong bipartisan support each time Congress previously considered them in 1975, 1982, and 1992. As Senator Orrin Hatch observed 

during the 1992 hearings, ‘‘[t]he right to vote is one of the most fundamental of 

human rights. Unless government assures access to the ballot box, citizenship is 

just an empty promise. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, containing bilingual 

election requirements, is an integral part of our government’s assurance that Americans do have such access.’’ 1 Senator Hatch’s observation is equally true today, as 

Members of both Parties and this Subcommittee have recognized by addressing the 

continuing need for Section 203 nearly two years before it expires. 

I am an attorney in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona and an Adjunct Professor 

at the Barrett Honors College at Arizona State University. I hold a Doctor of the 

Science of Laws (or S.J.D.) degree from the University of Pennsylvania. I previously 

worked as a senior trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section, in 

which a substantial amount of my work focused on Section 203 enforcement. I also 

have a forthcoming article on Section 203 that will be provided to Members of the 

Subcommittee. I have teamed with Dr. Rodolfo Espino, a Professor in ASU’s Department of Political Science who holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University 

of Wisconsin-Madison, to co-direct a nationwide study of minority language assistance practices in public elections. Our research team includes ten extraordinary students in the Barrett Honors College, who have labored countless hours over the last 

eighteen months to produce the information I will discuss today.2 Our report will 

be released by the end of this year. 

Before discussing our study, I will outline the scope and requirements of the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act to place our findings into context. The provisions apply to four language groups: Alaskan Natives; American Indians; persons of Spanish Heritage; and Asian Americans.3 Each of these language 

groups includes several distinct languages and dialects.4

79

category but reported the name of an Indian tribe. The population designated as Alaskan Native includes persons residing in Alaska who identified themselves as Aleut, Eskimo or American Indian. Persons of Spanish heritage are identified as (a) ‘persons of 

Spanish language’ in 42 States and the District of Columbia; (b) ‘persons of Spanish 

language’ as well as ‘persons of Spanish surname’ in Arizona, California, Colorado, Mew 

Mexico, and Texas; and (c) ‘persons of Puerto Rican birth or parentage in New Jersey, 

New York, and Pennsylvania.’ ’’

S. REP. NO. 94–295 at 24 n.14, reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 790–91 n.14 (quoting Letter from 

Meyer Zitter, Chief, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, to House Judiciary Committee, 

Apr. 29, 1975). 5See 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b). 6S. REP. NO. 94–295 at 31, reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 798; see also id. at 9, reprinted 

in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 775 (section 4(f)(4) applies to areas ‘‘where severe voting discrimination 

was documented’’ against language minorities). Specifically, ‘‘the more severe remedies of title 

II are premised not only on educational disparities’’ like the less stringent provisions under title 

III of the 1975 amendments, ‘‘but also on evidence that language minorities have been subjected 

to ‘physical, economic, and political intimidation’ when they seek to participate in the political 

process.’’ 121 CONG. REC. H4718 (daily ed. June 2, 1975) (statement of Rep. Edwards). 7See Figure C-1. Coverage determinations were published at 40 Fed. Reg. 43746 (Sept. 23, 

1975), 40 Fed. Reg. 49422 (Oct. 22, 1975), 41 Fed. Reg. 784 (Jan. 5, 1976) (corrected at 41 Fed. 

Reg. 1503 (Jan. 8, 1976)), and 41 Fed. Reg. 34329 (Aug. 13, 1976). Covered counties in Colorado, 

New Mexico, and Oklahoma have bailed out pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act. 

See 28 C.F.R. § 55.7(a). 8See 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa–1a(b)(2). 9See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa–1a(b)(3)(B) (defining ‘‘limited-English proficient’’ as the inability ‘‘to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process’’). The 1992 House Report explains the manner in which the Director of Census determines 

the number of limited-English proficient persons:

The Director of the Census determines limited English proficiency based upon information included on the long form of the decennial census. The long form, however, is only 

received by approximately 17 percent of the total population. Those few who do receive 

the long form and speak a language other than English at home are asked to evaluate 

their own English proficiency. The form requests that they respond to a question inquiring how well they speak English by checking one of the four answers provided—‘‘very 

well,’’ ‘‘well,’’ ‘‘not well,’’ or ‘‘not at all.’’ The Census Bureau has determined that most 

respondents over-estimate their English proficiency and therefore, those who answer 

other than ‘‘very well’’ are deemed LEP.

H.R. REP. NO. 102–655 at 8, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 772. 10See 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa–1a(c). 

Jurisdictions are selected for coverage through two separate triggering formulas. 

Under Section 4(f)(4) of the Act, a jurisdiction is covered if three criteria are met 

as of November 1, 1972: (1) over five percent of voting age citizens were members 

of a single language group; (2) the jurisdiction used English-only election materials; 

and (3) less than fifty percent of voting age citizens were registered to vote or fewer 

than fifty percent voted in the 1972 Presidential election.5 This trigger covers jurisdictions that have experienced ‘‘more serious problems’’ of voting discrimination 

against language minority citizens.6

Jurisdictions covered under Section 4(f)(4) must provide assistance in the language triggering coverage and are subject to the Act’s special provisions, including 

Section 5 preclearance, Section 6 federal examiner coverage, and Section 8 federal 

observer coverage. Section 4(f)(4) coverage applies in three states (Alaska for Alaskan Natives, and Arizona and Texas for Spanish Heritage) and nineteen counties 

or townships in six additional states.7

Under Section 203 of the Act, a jurisdiction is covered if the Director of the Census determines that two criteria are met. First, the limited-English proficient citizens of voting age in a single language group: (a) number more than 10,000; (b) comprise more than five percent of all citizens of voting age; or (c) comprise more than 

five percent of all American Indians of a single language group residing on an Indian reservation. Second, the illiteracy rate of the language minority citizens must 

exceed the national illiteracy rate.8 A person is ‘‘limited-English proficient’’ (or LEP) 

if he or she speaks English ‘‘less than very well’’ and would need assistance to participate in the political process effectively.9

Jurisdictions that are covered under Section 203 of the Act must provide written 

materials and assistance in the covered language. Generally, written materials do 

not have to be provided for historically unwritten Alaskan Native or American Indian languages.10 After the most recent Census Department determinations on July 

26, 2002, five states are covered in their entirety (Alaska for Alaskan Natives, and 

Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for Spanish Heritage) and twenty-six 

80

11See Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1992, Determinations Under Section 203, 67 Fed. 

Reg. 48,871 (July 26, 2002) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 55) (‘‘2002 Determinations’’). Two 

states that previously were covered in part by Section 203, Iowa and Wisconsin, no longer are 

covered. See id.; 28 C.F.R. pt. 55, App. Section 203 coverage has been extended to political subdivisions of five states not covered previously: Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, and 

Washington. See 2002 Determinations, supra; 28 C.F.R. pt. 55, App. 12See Figure C-2. 13See U.S. GEN. ACCT. OFF., BILINGUAL VOTING ASSISTANCE: COSTS OF AND USE DURING THE

1984 GENERAL ELECTION 11–12 (1986) (‘‘1984 GAO Study’’). 14See U.S. GEN. ACCT. OFF., BILINGUAL VOTING ASSISTANCE: ASSISTANCE PROVIDED AND

COSTS 1, 33 (1997). 15See Figure E-1. 16The questions are derived from the Voting Rights Act and Census definitions. Survey results have been analyzed in light of Census 2000 data and the number and type of languages 

covered in each jurisdiction. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix B. 17See Appendix D for more information on the survey respondents. 18See Figure E-2. 19See Figure E-5. 20See Figure E-8. 

states are partially covered in a total of twenty-nine languages.11 Language assistance must be provided under either Section 4(f)(4) or Section 203 in 505 jurisdictions, which includes all counties or parishes, and those townships or boroughs specifically identified for coverage.12

There have been few studies examining how jurisdictions have actually implemented the Congressional mandate to provide language assistance in public elections. The General Accounting Office conducted studies in 1984 and 1997 to determine the costs associated with language materials and assistance under Section 

203. The 1984 GAO study obtained information from 318 political subdivisions and 

nineteen state governments.13 The 1997 study reported data from 292 covered jurisdictions in 26 states.14 Both studies were limited somewhat by the inability of many 

responding jurisdictions to provide the costs of bilingual voting assistance. Our 

study encountered similar problems.15 Nevertheless, for those jurisdictions that reported complete expense data, the costs of compliance generally comprise only a 

small fraction of total election expenses. Congress relied upon the 1984 GAO report 

to extend Section 203 in 1992. 

The purpose of our study is to update the cost data collected by the two GAO 

studies and to determine the practices of public elections officials in providing oral 

and written language assistance. Our survey assesses the availability and quality 

of assistance in several different areas: the use of bilingual coordinators who act as 

liaisons between the election office and the covered language groups; recruitment 

and training of election day poll workers; telephonic assistance; oral language assistance at every stage of the election process; written language materials provided to 

limited-English proficient voters; outreach and publicity; and the ability of voters to 

receive assistance from the person of their choice. The survey concludes by asking 

about the respondent’s views of reauthorization and the federal government’s role 

in providing language assistance, and an open-ended question about the jurisdiction’s experiences under Section 203.16

A total of 810 jurisdictions in thirty-three states were surveyed. The surveyed jurisdictions include: all jurisdictions specifically identified by the Census Department 

under either Section 4(f)(4) or Section 203; all counties in the five states that are 

covered; all cities in covered jurisdictions that the 2000 Census reports as having 

50,000 or more people; a handful of jurisdictions that no longer are covered as a 

result of the 2002 Census determinations; and the chief elections officer in each of 

the surveyed states. Jurisdictions were guaranteed anonymity to increase the likelihood that they would complete the survey. Over half of all surveyed jurisdictions 

responded. Complete responses were received from 361 jurisdictions in thirty-one 

states, making this the most comprehensive study of its kind ever conducted.17 The 

actual number of responses varies because some questions did not apply to all respondents and some respondents chose not to answer certain questions. 

Some critics have opposed Section 203 because they believe it imposes high costs 

on local election officials. Their fears have not materialized. The costs of compliance 

are modest if there are any costs at all. Of the 154 jurisdictions reporting oral language assistance expenses, 59.1 percent (91 jurisdictions) incur no extra costs.18

Similarly, of the 144 jurisdictions reporting written language material expenses, 

54.2 percent (78 jurisdictions) do not incur any additional costs.19 Of the 158 jurisdictions reporting complete election expenses, 39.5 percent (60 jurisdictions) do not 

incur any added costs for either oral or written language assistance.20 Other jurisdictions provided narrative responses indicating no additional expenses for the folVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:08 Mar 08, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\110905B\24505.001 HJUD1 PsN: 24505
81

21See Figure E-3. 22See 1984 GAO Study at 20. 23See Figure E-4. 24See Figure E-6. 25See 1984 GAO Study at 17. 26 H. REP. NO. 102–655 at 9, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 773. The legislative history from 

the original 1975 amendments also describes the use of effective targeting. See CONG. REC. S13650 (daily ed. July 24, 1975) (statement of Sen. Tunney); S. REP. NO. 94–295 at 69, reprinted 

in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 820. The Department of Justice guidelines explicitly provide for targeting. 

See also 28 C.F.R. § 55.17 (stating the Attorney General’s view ‘‘that a targeting system will normally fulfill the Act’s minority language requirements if it is designed and implemented in such 

a way that language minority group members who need minority language materials and assistance receive them’’). Even opponents of Section 203 have endorsed the use of targeting. See generally Statement of Stanley Diamond, Chairman of U.S. English, on Proposed Extension of Voting Rights Act, in S. 2236 Hearings, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., S. HRG. 102–1066, at 300 (describing 

targeting as the ‘‘least objectionable alternative’’ where it is limited to voter assistance and does 

not include ‘‘printing all materials in languages other than English’’). 

lowing: twenty-three for oral language assistance; thirteen for written language materials; and six for both. 

Respondents attribute the lack of additional costs to several factors. Many report 

hiring bilingual poll workers who are paid the same wages as other poll workers. 

Jurisdictions with Alaskan Native and American Indian voters report that bilingual 

materials are not provided because the covered languages are unwritten. Several jurisdictions providing bilingual written materials use election officials or community 

volunteers to translate materials, resulting in no additional costs. In many cases, 

printing costs do not increase as a result of having bilingual written materials. A 

number of jurisdictions in New Mexico and Texas report that state laws have language assistance requirements similar to Section 203, resulting in no additional cost 

for federal compliance. 

Of the 154 jurisdictions reporting complete data for oral language assistance, the 

average cost is 4.9 percent of all election expenses. However, the top ten percent 

of respondents (16 jurisdictions) skew this result by reporting average costs of 34 

percent. By contrast, the remaining 138 jurisdictions report average costs of only 1.5 

percent.21 Two factors contribute to the disparate results. Some of the sixteen jurisdictions attribute all of their election expenses, including costs for hiring permanent 

staff and Election Day poll workers who have to be hired regardless of Section 203, 

to oral language assistance. Furthermore, these sixteen jurisdictions are less populated, with an average total population of 40,262 compared to an average total population of 170,439 in the remaining jurisdictions. When these factors are taken into 

consideration, our study reveals oral language costs close to the average of 2.9 percent originally reported by the GAO in 1984.22 The average cost of oral language 

assistance remains approximately the same, regardless of the percentage of voters 

who need language assistance.23

A similar pattern emerges for the cost of written language materials. Of the 144 

jurisdictions reporting complete data for written materials, the average cost is 8.1 

percent. Again, the top ten percent of all respondents skewed the results, with fifteen jurisdictions reporting average written costs of 51.8 percent. The remaining 129 

jurisdictions report average written costs of only 3.0 percent.24 These disparate results occur for the same reasons as those reported for oral language assistance. The 

fifteen outlying jurisdictions have an average total population of 35,664 compared 

to an average total population of 180,529 for the other 129 jurisdictions. All of the 

outliers also attribute most—and in a few cases all—of their total written costs to 

bilingual election materials. When these factors are taken into consideration, the average cost of providing written language materials is substantially below the 7.6 

percent reported by the GAO in 1984.25

Even where some costs are incurred, most jurisdictions report that they are negligible because they target language assistance to only those areas that require it. 

During the 1992 hearings, Congress described effective targeting as whether ‘‘it is 

designed and implemented in a manner that ensures that all members of the language minority who need assistance, receive assistance.’’ 26 Some jurisdictions have 

heeded these instructions to minimize their costs. 

Many covered jurisdictions report election practices that fall short of complying 

with the Voting Rights Act. Of the jurisdictions responding to the survey, 80.6 percent (287 jurisdictions) report providing some type of language assistance to voters: 

60.4 percent (215 jurisdictions) report providing both oral and written language assistance, 14 percent (50 jurisdictions) report only providing written language mateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:08 Mar 08, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\110905B\24505.001 HJUD1 PsN: 24505
82

27See Figure E-11. 28See Figure E-12. 29See Figure E-13. 30Two of the jurisdictions providing only bilingual election materials also are covered for 

American Indian languages. These jurisdictions only have an average American Indian voting 

age population of .7 percent, of whom 12.4 percent are limited-English proficient. 31See Figure E-14. 32See Figure E-15. 33See Figure E-16. 

rials, and 6.2 percent (22 jurisdictions) report only providing oral language assistance.27

The 215 jurisdictions that report providing both oral and written language assistance include: 211 jurisdictions covered for Spanish Heritage, with an average Hispanic voting age population of 29.0 percent, of whom 39.0 percent are limitedEnglish proficient; 16 jurisdictions covered for Asian-American languages, with an 

average voting age population of 13.8 percent, of whom 43.3 percent are limitedEnglish proficient; and 26 jurisdictions covered for Alaskan Native or American Indian languages, with an average voting age population of 12.4 percent, of whom 20.5 

percent are limited-English proficient.28

Jurisdictions providing language assistance are more likely to be covered under 

Section 4(f)(4) or 203 in their own right than those that do not, which tend to be 

covered sub-jurisdictions such as counties or cities. There is no relationship between 

the jurisdiction’s total population and whether that jurisdiction provides assistance. 

The 50 jurisdictions that report providing only bilingual written materials 29 generally have large numbers of limited-English proficient voters in one or more of the 

covered languages. This group includes 47 Spanish Heritage covered jurisdictions, 

which have an average Hispanic voting age population of 18.3 percent, of whom 45.4 

percent are limited-English proficient. The 13 jurisdictions covered for Asian-American languages that provide only bilingual materials have higher percentages of 

Asian voting age population and LEP voters than the 16 Asian-American covered 

jurisdictions providing both oral and written language assistance. According to the 

2000 Census, these 13 jurisdictions have an average Asian voting age population of 

17.0 percent, of whom 44.6 percent are limited-English proficient. The average percentages of both Spanish Heritage and Asian-American voting age citizens in all 50 

jurisdictions are high enough to require full compliance with Section 203.30 Moreover, the absence of bilingual oral language assistance in these jurisdictions can be 

a significant deterrent to LEP voters seeking to participate in elections. 

Of the 22 jurisdictions that report providing only oral language assistance, over 

two-thirds (15 jurisdictions) are covered for Alaskan Native and/or American Indian 

languages, which generally do not require written materials. These 15 jurisdictions 

have an average American Indian voting age population of 27.7 percent, of whom 

15.0 percent are limited-English proficient. Only one out of the 63 respondents covered for Alaskan Native or American Indian languages (1.6 percent) report receiving 

voter requests for bilingual election materials. Jurisdictions providing only oral language assistance also include: 9 jurisdictions covered for Spanish Heritage, with an 

average Hispanic voting age population of 23.5 percent, of whom 37.2 percent are 

limited-English proficient; and 1 Asian-American covered jurisdiction, with an Asian 

voting age population of 7.6 percent, of whom 48.5 percent are limited-English proficient.31

Sixty-nine responding jurisdictions (19.4 percent) do not report providing language 

assistance of any kind. Every covered language group is affected by the lack of assistance in these 69 jurisdictions: 41 are covered for Spanish Heritage, with an average Hispanic voting age population of 18.8 percent, of whom 39.4 percent are limited-English proficient; 19 are covered for Alaskan Native or American Indian languages, with an average Alaskan Native or American Indian voting age population 

of 17.4 percent, of whom 6.0 percent are limited-English proficient; and 7 are covered for Asian-American languages, with an average Asian voting age population of 

13.8 percent, of whom 40.7 percent are limited-English proficient.32

The failure of many jurisdictions to provide language assistance in the covered 

languages is attributable to the misperception of election officials about the need for 

assistance. The 271 respondents estimate that an average of 5.5 percent of their jurisdiction’s voters requires oral language assistance in the covered language. However, according to the 2000 Census, the average number of limited-English proficient persons of voting age in these jurisdictions is actually double that number, 

or 10.9 percent. This divergence between perception and reality is the same regardless of how much language assistance the jurisdiction provides, if any.33

Less than half of the 326 respondents report providing assistance for telephone 

inquiries from voters in all of the covered languages: 39.0 percent (127 jurisdictions) 

83

34See Figure E-17. 35The average cost was calculated from the 95 jurisdictions submitting complete cost data 

that responded to this question. 36See Figure E-18. 37See Figure E-19. 38 28 C.F.R. § 55.18(e). 39See Figure E-20. 40See Figure E-24. 41See Figure E-23. 42 28 C.F.R. § 55.15. 43See Figure E-21. 

provide assistance in all covered languages; 26.4 percent (86 jurisdictions) in some 

covered languages; and 34.7 percent (113 jurisdictions) in none of the covered languages.34 Jurisdictions with a higher percentage of limited-English proficient voters 

are more likely to provide telephone assistance in the covered languages. They incur 

minimal costs for doing so. Of the 116 jurisdictions providing telephonic language 

assistance that reported their costs, the average cost is only .6 percent of total election expenses.35 Seventy-four percent (86 jurisdictions) report incurring no costs at 

all. Many jurisdictions report that their low costs are attributed to their use of fulltime election workers or volunteers who are fluent in the covered languages. 

Significantly, 57.1 percent (192 jurisdictions) of the 336 responding jurisdictions 

report that they do not have at least one full-time worker fluent in the covered language.36 There is a strong positive relationship between the percentage of limitedEnglish proficient voters and whether they employ bilingual full-time workers in the 

covered languages. 

Even fewer jurisdictions report that they use bilingual coordinators. Bilingual coordinators act as a liaison between election officials and language minority groups, 

and are routinely required in consent decrees and judicial remedies for Section 203 

violations. However, of the 338 responding jurisdictions, only 38.2 percent (129 jurisdictions) report having a bilingual coordinator who speaks a covered language.37

Department of Justice regulations require that covered jurisdictions have ‘‘direct 

contact with language minority group organizations’’ to ensure language assistance 

programs are effective.38 However, most covered jurisdictions do not do so. Of the 

322 responding jurisdictions, only 37.3 percent (120 jurisdictions) report that they 

consult with community organizations or individuals from the covered language 

groups about providing election assistance in those languages.39

Similarly, even where jurisdictions provide bilingual materials, many acknowledge 

not doing so for all election materials. Our study creates an index of eighteen types 

of written materials commonly used in elections. Of 284 respondents, two-thirds 

(189 jurisdictions) report that they translate more than half of all election materials.40 The jurisdiction’s population has no relationship to whether bilingual materials are provided. Several jurisdictions separately acknowledge not translating election materials they are required to provide in the covered language, including candidate qualifying forms, election results, voter instructions, and even ballots. Some 

report that they will do so in the future. Other jurisdictions report they will not provide bilingual materials because of cost, the failure of vendors to offer translation 

services, technological issues, or the use of bilingual poll workers to translate materials for voters. 

Most covered jurisdictions acknowledge that they do not provide oral language assistance at all stages of the election process. Our study creates an index of fourteen 

types of common election activities. Of the 328 respondents, only 32.9 percent (108 

jurisdictions) report that they provide language assistance for more than half of all 

election activities.41 Jurisdictions that translate more than half of all election materials are more likely to provide oral language assistance for election activities than 

those translating less than half of all election materials. The absence of oral language assistance is inconsistent with federal guidelines, which provide that Section 

203 ‘‘should be broadly construed to apply to all stages of the electoral process, from 

voter registration through activities related to conducting elections, including for example the issuance . . . of notifications, announcements, or other informational materials concerning the opportunity to register . . . the time, places and subject matters of elections, and the absentee voting process.’’ 42

Where oral language assistance is provided, it is impaired by the failure of most 

jurisdictions to ensure that bilingual election workers actually are fluent in the covered languages. Nearly two-thirds (210 jurisdictions) of the 324 responding jurisdictions do not require any confirmation of the language abilities of part-time poll 

workers.43

Responding jurisdictions generally provide regular training for poll workers. However, two-thirds of the 328 respondents (217 jurisdictions) reported that their poll 

84

44See Figure E-22. 45 Respondent 558. 46 Respondents 311, 402, 550. 47 Respondent 652. 48 Respondent 206. 49 Respondent 949. 50 Respondent 537. 51 Respondent 773. 52 Respondent 616. 53 Respondent 839. 54 Respondent 276. 55 Respondent 402. 56 Respondent 434. 57See Figures E-25 through E-27.

worker training does not include information on the languages covered in the jurisdiction. This number may be due to the lack of information included about language 

assistance in instructional videos, which are used by 63.8 percent (208 jurisdictions) 

of all respondents.44

Poll worker training on voter assistance does not necessarily include accurate 

training on federal requirements. Section 208 of the Act, which applies nationwide, 

provides that ‘‘[a]ny 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,’’ except for the voter’s employer or union representative. Only 10.3 

percent (27 jurisdictions) of the 263 respondents reported voter assistance practices 

that are at least as protective as Section 208: 1.9 percent (five jurisdictions) correctly stated the federal standard; and 8.4 percent (22 jurisdictions) permit voters 

to receive assistance from their person of choice, even if it falls into one of the two 

exceptions in Section 208. These voter assistance practices often are the result of 

jurisdictions complying with state laws that are more restrictive than Section 208 

allows. 

Responding jurisdictions are candid in reporting their election practices. Their responses highlight the many challenges they face in removing language barriers in 

elections to voters. Some jurisdictions have done a commendable job in responding 

to these challenges. Nevertheless, other jurisdictions still have a long way to go. 

Only twelve jurisdictions express opinions that elections should be conducted entirely in English. For example, one respondent notes, ‘‘I do not think that it is our 

responsibility to provide different languages. I think everything should be in English 

only! That is their responsibility (voter). Go to Mexico or other countries you have 

to learn their language. You come here and we have to learn theirs....’’ 45 A few 

others criticize enforcement efforts by the Department of Justice.46

However, a majority of jurisdictions reject these views. One respondent describes 

language assistance as ‘‘common sense.’’ 47 Others emphasize its ‘‘inclusivity’’ 48 and 

tendency to make ‘‘voters feel comfortable coming to the polls knowing there is help 

there if needed.’’ 49 One jurisdiction observes that ‘‘language assistance is extremely 

important in ensuring the integrity of the U.S. Election process’’ and the legitimacy 

of government outcomes.50 Another respondent explains, ‘‘for the longest time I 

thought that if you live in the USA, you should learn English. It is very difficult 

to help someone who doesn’t speak the language. My husband hunts in Mexico and 

the few times I went with him I felt helpless because I didn’t understand Spanish. 

It is very overwhelming when you need assistance and can’t get it because of the 

language barrier.’’ 51 These concerns cause some jurisdictions to suggest that Congress should ‘‘broaden the requirements.’’ 52

Many jurisdictions specifically commend the Justice Department’s enforcement efforts. Some ask the federal government to ‘‘[h]elp us come up with the means of getting rid of the ‘this is America, English only’ attitude of many people out there, both 

voters and election board workers.’’ 53 Others request that the Department do even 

more to ‘‘enforce existing rules.’’ 54 One jurisdiction requests that voter assistance 

requirements also ‘‘should be enhanced to let citizens with limited English skills to 

bring friend or family to help or they should be encouraged to vote absentee.’’ 55 As 

another respondent observes, ‘‘the federal government has done a lot to provide minority language assistance.’’ 56 Much remains to be done. 

Our study’s findings highlight the continuing need for language assistance. State 

and local election officials agree. An overwhelming majority of the 254 responding 

jurisdictions, 71.3 percent (181 jurisdictions) think that the federal language assistance provisions should remain in effect for public elections.57 For these reasons, I 

recommend in the strongest terms that the temporary provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act, including Sections 4, 6, 8, and 203, be reauthorized. Thank you very 

85

much for your attention. I will welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you 

may have. 

86

ATTACHMENT 1


JTTA0001.eps
87


JTTA0002.eps
88


JTTA0003.eps
89


JTTA0004.eps
90


JTTA0005.eps
91


JTTA0006.eps
92


JTTA0007.eps
93


JTTA0008.eps
94


JTTA0009.eps
95


JTTA0010.eps
96


JTTA0011.eps
97


JTTA0012.eps
98


JTTA0013.eps
99


JTTA0014.eps
100


JTTA0015.eps
101


JTTA0016.eps
102


JTTA0017.eps
103


JTTA0018.eps
104


JTTA0019.eps
105


JTTA0020.eps
106


JTTA0021.eps
107


JTTA0022.eps
108


JTTA0023.eps
109


JTTA0024.eps
110


JTTA0025.eps
111


JTTA0026.eps
112


JTTA0027.eps
113


JTTA0028.eps
114


JTTA0029.eps
115


JTTA0030.eps
116


JTTA0031.eps
117


JTTA0032.eps
118


JTTA0033.eps
119


JTTA0034.eps
120


JTTA0035.eps
121


JTTA0036.eps
122


JTTA0037.eps
123


JTTA0038.eps
124

ATTACHMENT 2


JTTB0001.eps
125


JTTB0002.eps
126


JTTB0003.eps
127


JTTB0004.eps
128


JTTB0005.eps
129


JTTB0006.eps
130


JTTB0007.eps
131


JTTB0008.eps
132


JTTB0009.eps
133


JTTB0010.eps
134

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Cartagena, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JUAN CARTAGENA, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY 

Mr. CARTAGENA. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me 

here to share our observations from the Community Service Society 

on the reauthorization of certain provisions of the Voting Rights 

Act. 

My name is Juan Cartagena. I am general counsel to the CSS 

and a voting rights attorney since 1981, as soon as I came out of 

school, that is. And I have been using the Voting Rights Act and 

its promises of equal opportunity and full political access to serve 

underserved communities in a number of States and neighborhoods, especially racial and language minorities. 

CSS is an independent organization in New York City that uses 

research, advocacy, volunteerism, and direct service to address 

issues of poverty and strengthen community life for all. I direct a 

small public interest litigation unit that serves to supplement its 

advocacy work. And since 1989, CSS has been using the Voting 

Rights Act and other legal means to ensure full and fair representation of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. 

My focus of my testimony that you have, I hope, in your hands, 

and also of my remarks today, is essentially on the concerns of the 

Latino communities in New York City, with particular emphasis on 

the voting rights of Puerto Rican citizens, but inasmuch as I’ve 

done quite a bit of work in litigation while in New Jersey, some of 

my testimony is related to that State as well. 

CSS’s position in this issue is pretty clear. We have many, many 

years of doing street registration in poor communities, and of 

mounting legal challenges to institutional barriers to control political participation. And we strongly support bilingual voting assistance provisions that are a valid and efficient use and policy that 

promotes democracy. And there are numerous good reasons why 

the bilingual assistance provision 203 allow language minority citizens an equal opportunity to participate in the process, I will summarize some of them right now for you. 

In our view, section 203 is still viable and necessary in 2005 because the full participation of Latino-language minority citizens 

has yet to be achieved. Equally important, we have needed aggressive enforcement activity from both the Department of Justice and 

private attorneys general in both States, New York and New Jersey. As a result, in our opinion, the Latino community has yet to 

reap the full benefits that Congress promised them 15 years ago in 

the recent amendment and even back further. 

About 75 percent of Latinos in this country speak a language 

other than English at home. That is much higher than the national 

average of 18 percent. About 41 percent of Latinos in this country 

speak English less than very well, which is a measure used by the 

Census Bureau to certify 203 jurisdictions. And about 23 percent, 

almost a quarter, do not speak English at all. In New York City, 

the portion of individuals who are Latino who do not speak English 

very well is even higher, 51 percent. 

135

The issues of turnout in the Latino community were also of concern in the enactment of the Voting Rights provisions or the bilingual assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. And here I differ with my panelist Mr. McAlpin that the concerns regarding the 

bilingual assistance provisions occurred in ‘75. They occurred as 

early as 1965, with the enactment of 4(e) that specifically was delegated to the benefit of the Puerto Rican community. In that sense, 

turnout issues are still an issue; that is, the bilingual assistance 

provisions were also passed by Congress to address issues of lack 

of turnout. And today, recent studies regarding the 2004 election 

by the Pew Hispanic Center demonstrate that 47 percent of eligible 

Latinos have turned out to vote in the 2004 election, compared to 

about 67 percent for Whites and about 60 percent for Blacks. 

When you look, Mr. Chairman, at the number of Latino elected 

officials in this country, it is less than 11⁄2 percent of all the officeholders in this country, about 493,000 somewhat offices, and yet 

Latinos only hold less than 11⁄1 percent of those offices. Enforcement mechanisms, therefore, have been very important. 

In New York, observers from the Justice Department for section 

203 compliance have been issued as recently as 2004, and I should 

say as recently as 2 days ago at the elections in New York City. 

In Passaic County alone, 450 observers were deployed by the Department of Justice in a 5-year span for the purpose of ensuring 

that bilingual assistance under 203 will be complied with, for the 

purpose of also demonstrating that Latino voters will not be intimidated against; that’s 450 in 5 years. 

203 is also important as—another reason for its reenactment of 

203, is also important with respect to the voting rights of Puerto 

Rican citizens in this country. 

I have set forth in my testimony a number of passages from an 

opinion back in 1965, U.S. v. Monroe County. If you have a chance 

to look at that opinion, gentlemen, you will recognize that all the 

principles in that opinion are still true today. Puerto Ricans are 

still subject to the full authority of the territory. Puerto Ricans are 

still citizens of the United States. Puerto Ricans still migrate back 

and forth with no inhibition or obstacle whatsoever. 

Spanish is spill a major feature in Puerto Rican life, both in 

Puerto Rican and for Puerto Ricans in the United States. About 

three-quarters of the island population speaks English less than 

very well. About 40 percent speaks no English at all. 

Puerto Ricans here in the United States have different characteristics, but still about a quarter of those speak English less than 

very well, and in New York and New Jersey that proportion is 

slightly higher. 

So while English is being spoken at much higher rates, we still 

have a very large proportion of Puerto Ricans, back over there on 

the island and over here, that are not yet mastering English. They 

are close to now almost 3.7 million, according to the census, Puerto 

Ricans in the United States, approaching 3.8 million on the island 

of Puerto Rico. Very soon, any day now, there will be probably even 

slightly more. 

So let me try to wrap up with the following points. Section 203 

is very important because, in our opinion, it promotes good government, responsive government, and government that actually adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:08 Mar 08, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\110905B\24505.001 HJUD1 PsN: 24505
136

dresses issues with a formula that is self-maintaining. It will 

change over time with demographic changes, coverage changes. 

The language characteristics of Latinos that I just talked about 

I think warrant continued coverage. Lack of enforcement and compliance warrant continued coverage. We also are in favor of actually reducing the numerical thresholds from 10,000 to 7,500. 

I would be happy to answer your questions if time permits. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cartagena follows:]

137

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUAN CARTAGENA


JC0001.eps
138


JC0002.eps
139


JC0003.eps
140


JC0004.eps
141


JC0005.eps
142


JC0006.eps
143


JC0007.eps
144


JC0008.eps
145


JC0009.eps
146


JC0010.eps
147


JC0011.eps
148


JC0012.eps
149


JC0013.eps
150


JC0014.eps
151


JC0015.eps
152


JC0016.eps
153


JC0017.eps
154


JC0018.eps
155


JC0019.eps
156


JC0020.eps
157


JC0021.eps
158


JC0022.eps
159


JC0023.eps
160


JC0024.eps
161


JC0025.eps
162


JC0026.eps
163


JC0027.eps
164


JC0028.eps
165


JC0029.eps
166

Mr. CHABOT. I want to thank all of the panel members for their 

testimony here this morning. 

The question I am going to ask has several parts to it, and I am 

just going to go down the line and let each one of you take it. I’m 

not sure if I’ll have any time left when I’m done because I’m encouraging Members to stick within their 5 minutes because we only 

have the room until 10 o’clock because there is another Committee 

coming here afterwards. 

First of all, you’ve all indicated, I think, for the most part, with 

some exceptions, that 203 is still needed. Number one, are language minorities currently being discriminated against in the election process? And shouldn’t Americans be encouraged to learn 

English? And shouldn’t we be focusing on resources on bettering 

our schools and our Nation’s proficiency in the English language? 

And how is this provision consistent with the naturalization process in which individuals applying for citizenship are required to 

learn and understand English? And finally, is section 203 consistent with encouraging assimilation, or, as some suggest, does the 

section divide or balkanize our Nation? 

And there’s a lot in there, and you’re invited to take any parts 

that you feel comfortable with, within about a minute each, unfortunately. So we will begin with you, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. As far as should citizens be encouraged to learn English, I think we’re not talking about Alaskan Natives or Native Americans as naturalized citizens, we’re talking 

about them as the indigenous citizens of this country. And in 1991 

there was a study—in fact, right before there was some—203 was 

taken up again in Congress, the study said—Nations at Risk said 

that 9 percent of the people only had limited English proficiency in 

the fifth grade in English. If you think about that, that’s only— you’re talking 10 years later, they’re only in their early 20’s. And 

in the communities, particularly from the rural parts of Alaska 

that I know best, English is the second language, and that elders 

continue to speak in the language that they know best, and that 

children continue to learn in that environment. Although the children learn English in school, it doesn’t mean that it necessarily is 

their—and I think that the younger generations will probably be 

more proficient in English. We still have a huge sector of our population that is more proficient in their own indigenous language, 

and so we need to accommodate that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. McAlpin. 

Mr. MCALPIN. Mr. Chairman, I think what you said, does it discriminate against other language minorities? Obviously to have 

ballots in English discriminates against other languages, I mean, 

that’s self-evident, but I think the real issue is it does not discriminate against anybody on the basis of race or ethnicity or national 

origin, and that point I made in my testimony. 

Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to learn English? Absolutely. 

The census shows that an immigrant who speaks English well 

earns on average 43 percent more than one who doesn’t speak it 

well. If they speak English very well, they earn almost twice as 

much as someone who doesn’t speak it well. So it’s clearly in the 

country’s interest and it’s in the immigrants’ interest to encourage 

167

them. It raises their job skills and raises their taxpaying power, everything. It’s a win-win situation. We definitely should be encouraging that. 

Naturalization, it’s not consistent with naturalization. Now I’m 

very much aware that we do have exceptions in our naturalization 

laws for people that have been here for over 20 years, that are 50 

years of age or more, but that’s an enormous concession to people 

to make that, and it does not follow that because we give them that 

privilege, that we have to then also go to the trouble of providing 

bilingual ballots. They have alternatives that are very logical, common-sense and targeted. Like I said, to bring an interpreter into 

the poll with them, family member or whoever they want, they 

have that right; the Justice Department has made that clear since 

1982. 

Does it divide our Nation? Yes. It takes us down a pejorative 

path that we do not want to go. This country has had a successful 

model since its founding, called the melting pot, of assimilating 

people from every place on Earth to become good, solid Americans 

and part of our community, and we want to continue—to turn our 

back on that, which is what this starts to do, it sends a very strong 

signal that we can be a Nation of linguistically isolated colonies instead of one community speaking one language and having that 

common bond. Very important, as Barbara Jordan said, to promote 

policies that ensure our civic unity, and that means our linguistic 

unity as well. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Tucker. 

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Really I want to break down my answer in two parts; first of all, 

to debunk this myth that somehow most of the individuals who 

need language assistance are recent arrivals. They’re not. The 2000 

census data shows that among Hispanics, 60 percent of all Hispanics in the United States were Native-born Hispanics. One hundred percent of Puerto Ricans, of course, are Native-born, as well 

as all Alaskan Natives and Native Americans. 

So that being aside, it’s clear just based upon that evidence alone 

that this is not just—nor should it be—some sort of division between let’s treat the naturalized citizens differently than the folks 

who were Native-born. We need to have one standard, it should 

apply, and that standard should be let’s make the election system 

open and accessible to every citizen who needs it, regardless of 

their language abilities. 

Among Latinos, according to the 2000 census, 40.6 percent of all 

Latinos in the United States speak English less than very well. 

And among Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, that number 

is 11.1 percent of all Alaskan Natives and Native Americans. 

Mr. CHABOT. I hate to cut you off here, but I’m trying to be fair 

to all my colleagues here. So thank you very much. 

Mr. Cartagena. 

Mr. CARTAGENA. Mr. Chairman, I think the information that I 

provided in my testimony with respect to compliance with 203 and 

the issues of Federal observers and litigation promoted by the Department of Justice and other attorneys demonstrate that there 

168

still is a problem of discrimination against language-minority citizens in this country. 

With respect to your other questions regarding how do you 

square 203 with naturalization and whether or not it’s encouraging 

assimilation, I don’t think anyone is standing before any of you, sir, 

gentlemen, and demanding that—or asserting that language-minority citizens do not want to learn English; they all do. The problem 

is there’s not enough resources for them to learn English. I cite a 

New York Times article in my testimony that demonstrates that 

there are no places for adults to learn English in virtually all of 

Queens County. 

The point here, sir, is that we’re talking about the right to vote, 

one of the most cherished rights in our democracy. And to condition 

that right to vote on complete fluency in English, enough to try to 

even understand ballot initiates and referenda—which is not easy 

to do even in the English language, I would submit—I think is a 

mistake. The right to vote is too important to take it away from 

individual citizens who are simply trying to participate in the political process. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This morning it seems like deja vu. I can’t—I almost can’t believe 

that I am listening to a debate about whether immigrants or recent 

immigrants need assistance at the polls. It’s like we’ve just thrown 

away 30 years of constitutional voting rights history and opened 

this up as a brand new subject. 

And to quote Barbara Jordan, Mr. McAlpin—I don’t know if 

you’ve met or know Barbara Jordan, she was a member of this 

Committee. And for you to take that phrase and suggest or imply 

that it supports your position is something that I would like to discuss with you for the rest of the year. 

But this is a stunning discussion here. We’ve been through the 

courts on this. The law is settled on it. Why we’re going through 

all of this may be because of H.R. 997, an English-only bill, which 

my Chairman is or was a co-sponsor of, Mr. Chabot, and I don’t 

know what it is we’re doing here. 

Immigrants are discriminated, exploited, oppressed, economically 

subjugated. Their rights are violated outside of voting. Here is a 

subservient labor workforce that is incredibly discriminated 

against, and we meet here to discuss constitutional niceties about 

whether or not they ought to—they need any help with English 

language in voting. Of course they do. 

Now, Michigan is covered—is caught by this provision in Allegan 

County, and we’ve checked with all the Mexican-American Legal 

Defense and the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 

NALEO, and compliance seems to be good and going on. 

But let me yield to Mr. Tucker to help me stabilize my presence 

here this morning in the kind of discussion that we’re having. I 

would like you to comment on my observations, please. 

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

I want to point out again that I think everything that the gentleman from Michigan said is absolutely true, that there really 

169

should not be some sort of bifurcation or have different gradations 

of citizenship. We really should be far beyond that. And the fact of 

the matter is that I’m someone who has worked both as someone 

who has been a trial attorney at Justice enforcing the provisions, 

as well as someone who’s worked with election officials to come into 

compliance. Most elections officials want to do this. Most elections 

officials want to do the right thing, which is to include these folks. 

To the extent that there’s a discussion that somehow this is 

going to balkanize the country, exactly the opposite is true. The 

fact of the matter, as this Committee has recognized, as well as the 

House and Senate recognized when it previously considered this 

provision, most individuals who are immigrating to the United 

States learn English well enough within about 10 years after arrival. This is a way to integrate them into the system, this is a way 

to make them full Americans. And to be talking about in 2005 that 

we’re going to somehow treat naturalized citizens in a different 

manner than folks who happen to be Native-born is somewhat astonishing. I mean, that’s an argument that was made repeatedly in 

the 19th century, and it’s really time that we should move beyond 

that. The fact of the matter is assistance does make a difference, 

having people there who could speak their language does make a 

difference. 

The voter assistance provisions of section 208 do not cure this 

problem. The fact of the matter is our studies show that 90 percent 

of the jurisdictions—and these are election officials—are getting 

208 wrong. And this is exactly consistent with what is frequently 

reported in the newspaper, where you have people who will bring 

their mother with them, their father, their daughter, their son to 

give them assistance, and they’re turned away, they’re not allowed 

to go into the voting both. So for those reasons I believe the gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right, and 203 is necessary. 

Mr. CONYERS. I assume, Mr. Cartagena, Esquire, that you’re in 

general agreement with the comments of myself and your fellow 

witness? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time is expired. Please answer the 

question. 

Mr. CARTAGENA. Yes, I am, definitely. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Iowa Mr. King is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I sit here and I see 

significant disagreement with a lot of the philosophy that I’ve 

heard here with the panel, and also I think the tone I hear from 

the questioning. And I think when I look back on this section 203, 

as I understand it, it’s more than a generation old, and in a generation you can do a lot of things. 

I look back on Lowell Webster, writing the American English dictionary for the express purpose of standardizing the spelling, the 

pronunciation and the meaning of the English language because it 

was just English that was being colloquialized in the Thirteen 

Original Colonies. When he traveled, he realized there were enclaves—just language enclaves, not ethnic enclaves, but just language enclaves being established in the original Thirteen Colonies, 

and he was afraid the United States of America would break apart 

because we couldn’t communicate with each other to the level that 

170

we would have an overall binding common communications currency. And so he wrote the English language dictionary. 

It was his dream to make it a constitutional amendment, and I 

wish he had gotten that done. In fact, I wish we had never seen 

section 203 because in this generation we might have gotten away 

from all these language barriers, these language enclaves that we 

seem to be promoting here instead of seeking to diminish the promotion of assimilation. You need to learn English if you want to 

succeed and participate successfully in this society, and we’re sending the opposite message by this policy. 

My father grew up in a German-speaking household. He went to 

kindergarten the first day speaking only German, and he walked 

into the house that day from that first day, and he said hello to 

his mother in German, and she turned to him and pointed her finger at him and said, son, speaking German in this household is for 

you from now forbidden. I came here to become an American; I 

need you to go to school and learn English and bring it home and 

teach it to me. And that’s how she learned it. And they were proud 

to be Americans. And she sent four sons back to Germany to fight 

in World War II and one to the South Pacific. And so, you know, 

that’s the background that I bring to this. 

And I think we’re working in the wrong direction by promoting 

ethnic—or I’ll say language enclaves. Ethnicity is another choice 

and another subject matter, but we need to pull this together. 

When will we ever get to the point where we can get rid of 203? 

By the testimony that I’ve heard—and I guess I’ll turn the question 

to Mr. Tucker, and what would be your goals to—what do you 

think America is going to look like in a generation from now, or 

two or three, more language enclaves or less, if we keep promoting 

the language dependency? 

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. King. I would respectfully disagree 

with the gentleman from Iowa with respect to referring to the language enclaves. It really isn’t. This is literally the melting pot of 

American Society. It’s truly a wonderful thing. 

I have to say, one of the shining moments that I have seen was 

what sort of impact this has on recent arrivals who do not speak 

English well enough to participate. And bear in mind that many 

of the individuals who do not speak English well enough, it’s not 

because they don’t want to, in many instances they simply are not 

capable of learning English. Many of the individuals, a large percentage who are limited in English proficiency in this country, are 

individuals over the age of 60. That’s particularly true on the Navajo Reservation, throughout Indian country, among a large number 

of Latinos. And that, again, is specifically why in 1984, when the 

GAO commissioned the Southwest Voter Education Project to do a 

study, they found that the majority of the individuals who needed 

assistance were Native-born Americans that simply had not gotten 

the educational opportunities that they needed——

Mr. KING. Mr. Tucker, the Hispanics that come across from our 

southern border and arrive here, what is their indigenous language? 

Mr. TUCKER. It would be Spanish. 

Mr. KING. It would. 

Mr. TUCKER. Yes. 

171

Mr. KING. And what did their ancestors learn? 

Mr. TUCKER. Presumably Spanish. 

Mr. KING. What did they speak before that? 

Mr. TUCKER. I don’t know. I——

Mr. KING. Their Native American language that you’re addressing. And they adapted Spanish quickly, and they learned it in the 

missionaries. In fact, it became the lingua franca that bonded them 

together. They had the ability to learn Spanish a few centuries ago, 

and I would think that they would have the ability to learn English 

today. 

Can I turn to Mr. McAlpin for a comment, please? 

Mr. MCALPIN. Yeah. First of all, thank you, Mr. King, I appreciate—and I wanted to reiterate, we are in favor of every citizen 

having the right to vote. And with all due respect to the gentleman 

from Michigan, sir, I did have the privilege of meeting Barbara Jordan, I did have the privilege of testifying before her commission, 

and I have enormous respect for her. And I think her words speak 

for themselves. And I think that she would be very much, really—

I wish she were here to speak for herself. I think she would be encouraging that we go down the path of unifying people. And what 

we are saying here is we should not treat naturalized citizens differently from American citizens, we should treat people the same. 

Now, I also want to just say that everybody has the right to get 

language assistance in the polls. They can bring an interpreter 

with them. There is nothing to prevent local election districts from 

hiring and providing interpreters. There is nothing to prevent 

groups and organizations like Mr. Cartagena’s from providing volunteer interpreters and something like that. There are reasonable 

targeted opportunities for people who cannot speak English to be 

able to get assistance to be able to cast an informed ballot. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I hate to cut you off there, but the gentleman from Virginia Mr. 

Scott is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me follow up on that line of questioning, Mr. McAlpin. Apparently you’re not offended when election officials are courteous 

and helpful and helping voters get through the registration and 

voting process; is that right? You’re not offended by that? 

Mr. MCALPIN. I most certainly am not. Sometimes when I vote 

early in the morning, they don’t seem to be in the best of moods, 

sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know what a blank paper ballot is? 

Mr. MCALPIN. A blank paper ballot is a ballot that has a blank 

on it for——

Mr. SCOTT. The blank ballot voter registration form. 

Mr. MCALPIN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. SCOTT. You know what it is? 

Mr. MCALPIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you have a form that asks the questions, that 

would be helpful. You don’t like the blank paper voter registration 

form, do you? 

Mr. MCALPIN. I’m not sure I understand your question, sir. 

172

Mr. SCOTT. Would you support a blank paper voter registration 

form where you’re given a blank piece of paper, and you have to 

fill out all the information; if you leave it out——

Mr. MCALPIN. There is no information printed on it in any way? 

Mr. SCOTT. That’s right. They used to have those. And it’s up to 

the voter, the person trying to register, to put down all the information. And if you leave something out, like you forgot to answer 

whether you have been convicted of a felony, leave anything out, 

you leave, they just don’t register your vote because you just didn’t 

provide all the information. 

Do you support the blank paper voter registration? 

Mr. MCALPIN. I don’t think so. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you support literacy tests? 

Mr. MCALPIN. No. Certainly if they’re not—if they’re used in a 

discriminatory manner, absolutely not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you support literacy tests? 

Mr. MCALPIN. No, I do not. But I will say this, that a ballot in 

any language requires literacy. 

Mr. SCOTT. Should bilingual assistance—I think you said bilingual assistance should be allowed. 

Mr. MCALPIN. It is allowed under the law right now, it is allowed. 

Mr. SCOTT. If it’s provided, is that a good thing or a bad thing? 

Mr. MCALPIN. It is a good thing for people that cannot read 

English well enough to understand a ballot, to allow them to 

have—they can bring a volunteer, a member, family member, a 

friend, clergyman, anybody else to help them into the poll with 

them——

Mr. SCOTT. And if a substantial number of people actually need 

assistance, and that assistance is denied, and large groups of constituents, of potential voters in the area can’t get through the process, that assistance is denied, is that a good thing or a bad thing 

if the leaders in the community deny access to balloting by denying 

assistance to that group of people who might not vote for them? Is 

that denial and withholding of assistance a good thing or a bad 

thing? 

Mr. MCALPIN. It’s neither a good thing or a bad thing, it’s an illegal thing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Illegal now, but that’s what we’re talking about. Now, 

you said——

Mr. MCALPIN. No, no, sir. With all respect, sir, we’re talking 

about printing ballots in certain other languages and voter information. We’re not talking about providing assistance to people who 

cannot read a ballot in English. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, my response to that is you’re talking semantics. 

Let me go to Barbara Jordan’s questions. Such policies should 

help people learn to speak, read and write English effectively. Suppose a group wants to change the policy; the school board will not 

provide English as a second language assistance; and a group of 

people, a majority of the people, if they can ever vote, could change 

the policy. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that we ought to help 

the people register to vote so they can change the policy so they 

can help to speak, read and write English effectively? 

173

Mr. MCALPIN. Just two comments, sir. We are all in favor of— like I said, we believe that every qualified voter should be able to 

vote without exception. And secondly, we certainly support increased funding—— Mr. SCOTT. Well, you recognize—since my time is ending, you 

recognize, of course, that there would be a perverse incentive for 

the elected officials in the area to do everything they can to make 

sure that certain parts of the district don’t vote because they might 

vote them out of office and change some policies. And if you supply 

everybody all the assistance they need to get registered and cast 

an effective vote, some of those people might just get voted out of 

office; isn’t that right? 

Mr. MCALPIN. Well, if they are using their power as elected officials to prevent people from voting, they should be voted out of office, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Blank paper registration form doesn’t prevent anybody from voting. 

Mr. Tucker, is it helpful to change the policies—if people—if everybody can register and vote? 

Mr. TUCKER. I would say no, and the reason is very simple. 

Mr. SCOTT. No what? 

Mr. TUCKER. No, the policy should remain in effect, it should not 

be changed. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. Could I have 30 seconds to finish the question? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thirty seconds. 

Mr. SCOTT. The policy I’m talking about is a policy if a community doesn’t supply English as a second language assistance, and 

people want to change that policy so they can get more language 

assistance, the way you do that is through the political process. 

Now, if you can’t vote, you can’t change the process. 

Now, isn’t it helpful to have everybody voting so that everybody 

can have an equal voice in what the policy ought to be? 

Mr. TUCKER. It absolutely is, Mr. Scott. I would also note that 

on each occasion when Congress has considered the bilingual election provisions, they’ve specifically noted that this should not a be 

a punitive measure where the voters are held accountable for the 

lack of resources in their communities, whether it’s ESL or denial 

of educational opportunities in the public school system. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from Arizona Mr. Franks is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, folks, 

for being here. 

Mr. Cartagena, in hearing your testimony, I understand that it 

is your belief that we should have ballots printed in languages that 

reflect the local need as much as possible. And I guess I am sincerely wondering, where do we make the decision that ballots 

should be printed in a particular language? How do we make that 

decision in an unbiased manner? In other words, if we’re in an area 

where there is a large Hispanic population or a large German population, where do we make a distinction? 

Mr. CARTAGENA. Well, currently 203 makes that distinction for 

us. 203 has a numerical threshold and a number of other indicators 

174

that are objectively identifiable. The Census Bureau must certify 

that at least 5 percent of the current jurisdiction is limited Englishproficient language-minority citizens, or 10,000 people, whatever is 

less. 

Also, the Census determines other issues regarding education attainment. When those things happen in combination, then the Federal policy is to provide assistance in a language other than 

English. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, Mr. Cartagena, I know that you know that the 

goal there, of course, is to help those who cannot understand the 

ballot; but it occurs to me that that’s an arbitrary decision, because 

there is someone in the community that is not going to be covered 

under that situation. That’s just an invariable reality. My wife 

came here, emigrated from the Philippines, and she now speaks 

four languages. When she came to the United States, in English 

she knew yes, no, and what’s your name. She consistently beats me 

at the Word Power games now, so it’s kind of embarrassing. But 

the reality is that her family had great wisdom in making sure 

that she could understand the common language in this country so 

that she could do well. 

There is an old Iroquois quote that the secret to the universe is 

in the true naming of things, and that can’t exist unless there is 

some common language that everyone understands. And if we’re 

going to make an arbitrary Federal decision to say, well, in this 

area we’re going to print the ballot in two languages, this area 

three languages, no matter what we do, we will leave some group 

of people that don’t understand those languages out, unless we 

print the ballot in all known languages on the Earth, which is impractical and impossible. 

And it just occurs to me that no matter how far down this road 

we go, that if we don’t somehow invite and encourage a strong commitment on all the part of our citizens to a common language, that 

we do them a disservice in the long run. And, of course, I say that 

as someone, you know, that is married to a lady that speaks three 

more languages than I do, and again, that’s embarrassing. But the 

reality is that if we’re not careful, where do we stop here? 

I understand the very nature of the principle of creating ballots 

in many languages seems to speak against doing that because we 

can’t possibly print it in enough languages. So I just, Mr. Chairman, express that for the record, and appreciate the panelists for 

speaking to the issues. 

Mr. CARTAGENA. If I may just respond, Congressman. A wonderful thing when you talk about language, everyone has a personal 

story to say. And I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate 

Congressman King’s comments about his family. Let me tell you 

very briefly, then, in my family I learned English when my mother 

migrated from Puerto Rico to the United States in the ‘50’s. When 

she died, she had just been retired only about several—a handful 

of years, never earned more than $11,000 a year, worked in a sewing machine factory, knew barely enough English to get her way 

from her house to her job. She is from Puerto Rico, sir. 

And the issues that were raised by Mr. King and yourself seem 

to imply that Puerto Ricans, as one subset of the Latino community, do not want to learn English and insist on keeping Spanish. 

175

And the kind of discussion that we all have separates the reality 

that for Puerto Ricans in this country and for Puerto Ricans in 

Puerto Rico, the issues are pretty clear with respect to——

Mr. FRANKS. Let me just respond to that because I understand 

what you’re saying——

Mr. CARTAGENA. Service in our military with no questions asked. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time here just briefly. 

My time is almost gone. 

I appreciate your thought there. That’s not my heart at all. The 

bottom line is, though, that if the language is Spanish—why not 

Ilocano? Why not Tagalog? That leaves my wife out and would 

have left her out in that situation. And I just am concerned that 

if we don’t recognize the reality, we always leave someone out in 

that situation, and the only ultimate hope for everyone is to bring 

everybody together in a language we all understand. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time is expired. We have to give 

up this room when the big hand is on the 10. The gentlelady from 

Texas—on the 12, rather. The gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson 

Lee has the balance of the time, which I think is about 21⁄2 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman—and I will move very 

quickly—I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for allowing me to join this discussion. I look forward to being with you next 

week. 

Let me just quickly say I represent the 18th Congressional District, had the privilege of having Barbara Jordan as the 

maidenholder of this seat, and also the privilege of her support as 

I ran, and interacting with her principles and values. 

Might I just say that utilizing the quote that Mr. McAlpin has 

used, let me just say that since Congresswoman Jordan was responsible for the language provision that included at that time Hispanics under the Voter Rights Act of 1965, I would venture to say 

that the interpretation of her remarks would be such that she 

would not use the hammer of non-English to deny a birthright of 

the right to vote. 

And I would work with Mr. McAlpin continuously to expand 

English and provide educational resources and make sure our 

schools are credible and that we don’t have second- and third-rate 

schools. But how that tracks with the voting right is a question. 

So Mr. Tucker, here is my question, because we have to determine whether we want to continue this provision and assistance, 

and that bears on the question of unduly burdensome in terms of 

the constitutional standard. Would this continuance be unduly burdensome on local jurisdictions, and in terms of cost and feasibility, 

as you would juxtapose it against the birthright, the constitutional 

right, the desires of making sure that all Americans and all who 

are eligible to vote can vote? 

Mr. TUCKER. No, it would not. As the Supreme Court has recognized for over 100 years, voting is a fundamental right. It’s not a 

fundamental right for some groups and not for others, it’s a fundamental right for all Americans. It is not unduly burdensome. 

I do want to point out that it’s not just our study that has shown 

that it’s not unduly burdensome, but the two GAO studies—which 

176

I again would commend to the Committee’s attention—show the 

same thing. 

The other point I want to make is that many of the costs that 

can be associated with providing language assistance can be limited significantly through effective targeting. Congress recognized 

that targeting should be a key component of it to make sure that 

those folks who need assistance receive it. DOJ’s guidelines call for 

the same thing. And jurisdictions that effectively target, do it, provide assistance significantly. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have 

that burden to do that. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Ranking Member Mr. Nadler is recognized for 

the purpose of making a brief statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me apologize. This hearing was very quickly rescheduled, and I had a previous commitment I couldn’t get out of 

until now. 

Let me just say—I will submit questions for the record, but I 

want to say for the record also that I regard the bilingual requirements of section 203 as of extreme importance, as not burdening 

anyone. And when you think of the fact not only—when you think 

of the fact that we want to increase people’s participation in democratic, or a small D, government, and that there are plenty of people in this country who are citizens for whom English is not their 

first language, many of whom are born in the United States and 

Puerto Rico who don’t have to learn English to become a citizen, 

this is little enough to ask. It has been a great service that we’ve 

had this requirement. It has increased democratic participation, 

and we should not even think of relaxing it in any way. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman. 

I thank the witness panel and all the Members for being here 

today. We do have one hearing next week—one hearing on the Voting Rights Act next week. 

If there is no further business to come before the Committee, we 

are adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:02 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(177)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE

CONSTITUTION

Welcome and thank you everyone for being here. This is the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution and the eighth in a series of hearings this Committee is holding examining the impact and effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act over the last twentyfive years. Today this Committee will continue its focus on Section 203, the provision authorizing bilingual language assistance to American citizens who are members of covered language minority groups and who have limited-English proficiency. 

Section 203 is set to expire in 2007, unless reauthorized. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses here today and look forward to their testimony. 

I’ll be brief this afternoon. Section 203 was enacted in 1975 in response to a history of unequal educational opportunities experienced by citizens whose dominate 

language is not English. Section 203 responds to this disparity by requiring designated jurisdictions to provide bilingual election assistance, including notices, instructions, information, and ballots, to citizens who are members of a designated 

language minority group and who have limited-English proficiency. 

As we heard yesterday, Section 203 has been an effective tool in assisting citizens 

who are members of a covered language minority group to participate in one of the 

most fundamental element of our system of democracy. However, we also heard testimony yesterday that Section 203 diminishes the importance of the English language in our nation, and imposes unnecessary costs on our electoral system. 

These are all important factors that the Committee must consider as we continue 

to examine the VRA. I look forward to continuing this discussion and hearing from 

our witnesses. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE CONSTITUTION

When Congress passed the Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act in 1975, we recognized that through the use of various practices and procedures, citizens of language 

minorities had been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. 

Among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens 

was directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation. 

We then determined that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth and 

fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, it was necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting discriminatory voting practices, and by prescribing other remedial devices. Thus we saw a direct connection between access to 

the ballot box and the ability to achieve equal educational and economic opportunity. Covered language minorities included: American Indians, Asian Americans, 

Alaskan Natives, and Spanish-heritage citizens—the groups that Congress found to 

have faced barriers in the political process. 

The legal requirements of Section 203 are straightforward: all election information 

that is available in English must also be available in the minority language so that 

all citizens will have an effective opportunity to register, learn the details of the 

elections, and cast a free and effective ballot. Sections 203, in combination with Section 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, have been tremendously successful in opening 

the franchise to citizens who are not native English language speakers. 

178

Some witnesses have challenged the constitutionality of Section 203 and even 

questioned the need for the provision. While I approach these hearings with an open 

mind, let me say at the outset, I fully support bilingual election assistance. In a 

growing multi-cultural society it only makes sense that we support and require the 

assistance necessary to allow every citizen to cast an effective ballot. 

I believe that it is dangerous to assume that past historical discrimination faced 

by language minorities has suddenly faded away with the passing of the millennium. If anything, the growth of our immigrant population has exacerbated existing 

patterns of discrimination. We see this in everything from patterns of hate violence 

to the rise of English-only movements which have not quite shaken their links to 

the past prejudices. 

As we move forward, I hope that our witnesses will address the continuing challenges faced by language minorities in gaining equal access to the ballot box, with 

a particular focus on litigation and patterns of discrimination. Equally important, 

I hope that they highlight the record of compliance by jurisdictions and the fact that 

the provision is not burdensome. At the end of this process, this Committee wants 

no question as to the need and viability of Section 203.

179

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


Lee0001.eps
180


Lee0002.eps
181


Lee0003.eps
182


Lee0004.eps
183


Lee0005.eps
184

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS NORBY, SUPERVISOR, FOURTH DISTRICT,

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS


CN0001.eps
185


CN0002.eps
186


CN0003.eps
187


CN0004.eps
188


CN0005.eps
189


CN0006.eps
190


CN0007.eps
191


CN0008.eps
192


CN0009.eps
193


CN0010.eps
194


CN0011.eps
195


CN0012.eps
196


CN0013.eps
197


CN0014.eps
198


CN0015.eps
199

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS (NALEO) EDUCATIONAL

FUND


AV0001.eps
200


AV0002.eps
201


AV0003.eps
202


AV0004.eps
203


AV0005.eps
204


AV0006.eps
205


AV0007.eps
206


AV0008.eps
207


AV0009.eps
208


AV0010.eps
209


AV0011.eps
210


AV0012.eps
211


AV0013.eps
212


AV0014.eps
213


AV0015.eps
214


AV0016.eps
215


AV0017.eps
216


AV0018.eps
217


AV0019.eps
218


AV0020.eps
219


AV0021.eps
220


AV0022.eps
221


AV0023.eps
222


AV0024.eps
223


AV0025.eps
224


AV0026.eps
225


AV0027.eps
226


AV0028.eps
227


AV0029.eps
228


AV0030.eps
229


AV0031.eps
230


AV0032.eps
231


AV0033.eps
232


AV0034.eps
233


AV0035.eps
234


AV0036.eps
235


AV0037.eps
236


AV0038.eps
237


AV0039.eps
238


AV0040.eps
239


AV0041.eps
240


AV0042.eps
241


AV0043.eps
242


AV0044.eps
243


AV0045.eps
244


AV0046.eps
245


AV0047.eps
246


AV0048.eps
247


AV0049.eps
248


AV0050.eps
249


AV0051.eps
250


AV0052.eps
251


AV0053.eps
252


AV0054.eps
253


AV0055.eps
254


AV0056.eps
255


AV0057.eps
256


AV0058.eps
257


AV0059.eps
258


AV0060.eps
259

VOTING RIGHTS CASES BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND/OR INTERPRETING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT RE: INDIAN INTERESTS. FROM JENNIFER ROBINSON, DANIEL MCCOOL, AND SUSAN OLSON: NATIVE VOTE: AMERICAN INDIANS, THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE. FORTHCOMING. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2006


Tab1.eps
260


Tab2.eps
261


Tab3.eps
262


Tab4.eps
263


Tab5.eps
264


Tab6.eps
265


Tab7.eps
266


Tab8.eps
267


Tab9.eps
268

Æ


Tab10.eps