The current dispute in Georgia over Spanish-language election ballots offers considerable temptation, we suspect, for the making of political hay in some quarters. It is an election year, after all, and taking a perceived strong stand against offering election materials in any language other than English offers an alluring chance to fire up a solid chunk of the electorate.
We hope that doesn’t happen. Pragmatic heads should prevail in resolving this question before any opportunists seize a chance to assemble fodder for campaign mailings. And it also would be preferable for Georgians to reach agreement before Washington perhaps decides for us.
As is most often the case in today’s society built alongside hardened lines, the issue at hand puts strong feelings on two sides firmly at odds with the other. To recap, last fall the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) and the New York City-based group Latino Justice, asked elections officials in Hall and Gwinnett counties to begin making available Spanish-language voting materials.
Their reasoning was that sizable Spanish-speaking populations in both counties could benefit from bilingual ballots and other materials. The groups also cited the legal reasoning that the federal Voting Rights Act already guarantees the right to vote for Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, but Spanish is the dominant language of their homeland. Federal law ensures they can vote without language difficulties if they move to the mainland U.S.
Building on that accommodation, GALEO and Latino Justice made the appeal for bilingual election ballots. Bolstering their case are U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 13,000 people of Puerto Rican descent live in Gwinnett and 900 in Hall County.
Officials in both counties rejected the request. Gwinnett Board of Registrations and Elections Chair Alice O’Lenick said last week that the county lacked enough information to make the decision on its own. She said the board must wait for direction from federal or state officials or a court.
Jerry Gonzalez, GALEO executive director, has promised to help that process along by pursuing the matter in court. A lawsuit would set the table for yet another lengthy, divisive legal fight embroiling a Georgia government entity. Given that a battle of lawyers will no doubt, rightly or wrongly, draw other issues surrounding immigration and assimilation into the public square, it’s hard to see how this state or its citizens will benefit from a protracted squabble.
Already, U.S. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Gainesville) has felt compelled to weigh in against bilingual ballots. In a statement last week, Collins said that “there is no reason to create a new burden on counties with an initiative that will have little impact for its citizens. Unreasonable demands by activist groups do not establish justification to change policies, especially when American citizens already have the right to bring translators with them to polling places.”
Collins went on to point out that he is a co-sponsor of the “English Language Unity Act, which would require that English be established as the official language of the United States. This bill is a critical step in recognizing that our language unites us as a country … .”
Collins did raise a legitimate point about the cost that might be imposed on counties from printing election ballots and related materials in multiple languages. To be viewed most fairly, though, that expense should be weighed against the cost of lawyers who would argue for the English-only status quo. There is no free lunch either way in this instance, we believe, and that reality should not be overlooked in the heat of debate.
It is already well-established in law and practice just who can vote in Georgia, or elsewhere in the U.S. Voters are also required to show identification as a proof against possible fraud.
In our view, as Georgia and metro Atlanta continue to grow, by necessity that expansion makes us an increasingly diverse region and state. Which means the core question here won’t go away anytime soon. That’s a reality even if some consider “diversity” to be a dirty word.
At its core, the ballot language question seems a matter best resolved at the county level. Local officials know their home territories better than those further up the bureaucratic governmental chain. Reaching solutions or accommodations at the grassroots level offers the best chance for avoiding costly legal travail, or possible big-footing by state lawmakers, the federal courts or Washington.
That can’t happen if counties, or other government officials, ignore demographic realities.
We might also do well to honestly ask ourselves what harm results from making it easier for some qualified citizens to exercise their right to vote?
About the Author
