Opinion ID: 1275739
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: English-Only Provisions in Other Jurisdictions

Text: ¶ 39 Although English-only provisions have recently become quite common, Arizona's is unique. Thus, we receive little guidance from other state courts. Twenty-one states [8] and forty municipalities [9] have official English statutes. However, most of those provisions are substantially less encompassing and certainly less proscriptive than the Amendment. The official English provisions in most states appear to be primarily symbolic. See, e.g., Puerto Rican Org. for Political Action v. Kusper, 490 F.2d 575, 577 (7th Cir.1973) (noting that official English law appears with laws naming the state bird and state song, and does not restrict the use to non-English languages by state and city agencies). Indeed, the Amendment has been identified as by far the most restrictively worded official-English law to date. M. Arrington, Note, English Only Laws and Direct Legislation: The Battle in the States Over Language Minority Rights, 7 L.J. & Pol. 325, 327 (1991). This observation is shared by other commentatorswho note that the Amendment is the most restrictive of the current wave of official-language laws, and is so far the most restrictive Official English measure. See D. Baron, The English-Only Question 21 (1990), and J. Crawford, Hold Your Tongue 176 (1992) (emphasis added). ¶ 40 In contrast to the Amendment, the official English laws that have been enacted in other states are for the most part brief and nonrestrictive. For instance, Colorado's official English law, Colo. Const. § 30, adopted by the initiative process, provides that the English language is the official language of the State of Colorado. This section is self executing; however, the General Assembly may enact laws to implement this section. Similarly, the official English statute of Arkansas states: (a) The English language shall be the official language of the State of Arkansas. (b) This section shall not prohibit the public schools from performing their duty to provide equal educational opportunities to all children. Ark. Stat. Ann. 1-4-117. Florida's 1988 official English law is similar: (a) English is the official language of the State of Florida. (b) The legislature shall have the power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation. Fla. Const. Art. II, § 9 (1988). Indeed, three states have simply enacted a provision which declares that English is the official language of the state: Illinois, 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 460/20; Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat. § 2.013; and Indiana, Ind.Code Ann. § 1-2-10-1. ¶ 41 The more detailed official English laws contain provisions which avoid some of the constitutional questions presented by the Amendment. For instance, Wyoming's law provides, in pertinent part, that: (a) English shall be designated as the official language of Wyoming. Except as otherwise provided by law, no state agency or political subdivision of the state shall be required to provide any documents, information, literature or other written materials in any language other than English. (b) A state agency or political subdivision or its officers or employees may act in a language other than the English language for any of the following purposes: (i) To provide information orally to individuals in the course of delivering services to the general public .... (vii) To promote international commerce, trade or tourism. Wyo. St. 8-6-101. ¶ 42 Similarly, Montana's official English law protects the free speech rights of state employees and elected officials by allowing them to use non-English languages in the course and scope of their employment, stating in pertinent part: This section is not intended to violate the federal or state constitutional right to freedom of speech of government officers and employees acting in the course and scope of their employment. This section does not prohibit a government officer or employee acting in the course and scope of their employment from using a language other than English, including use in a government document or record, if the employee chooses. Mont.Code Ann. § 1-1-510 (emphasis added). ¶ 43 Finally, although California's official English law, passed as an initiative in 1986, is specific and lengthy, it does not prohibit the use of languages other than English. [10] If Arizona's Amendment were merely symbolic or contained some of the express exceptions of the official English provisions discussed above, it might well have passed constitutional muster. We do not express any opinion concerning the constitutionality of less restrictive English-only provisions. We turn now to a discussion of the constitutional questions presented by the Amendment.