candidate removed from AZ ballot due to language ability

[ryberg]

According to a judge, you need to know more English than Cabrera was able to demonstrate.

But by Cabrera's account, she's fluent enough to serve her community, and she isn't running for national office.

“I think my English is good enough to hold public office in San Luis, Arizona,” she told CNN.

“I am not going to help (at the White House)," she added. "I will be helping here.”

When she said her English is good enough for San Luis, she brings up a point that’s been a large part of the debate about her language skills.

In San Luis, 87% of residents speak a language other than English in their home and 98.7% are of Hispanic origin, according to 2010 U.S. Census data. Most of the people there, by all accounts, speak in English and in Spanish. In the comfort of communal settings, they'll speak the way they're most comfortable...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/30...omment-page-1/

A couple other reports:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...1911327641698/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johns...panish-america

[melliedee]

Since the first report claims that city council business is conducted in English, I don't have a problem with the fact that she was denied a place on the ballot.

From the Huff Post:

Sociolinguistics expert William Eggington presented the court with results of three different tests he administered to Cabrera, who graduated from Kofa High School in Yuma. One measured her English-speaking skill, another was to determine if she reads the language, and the third was to assess her level of English comprehension.

Eggington's report said Cabrera's English skills don't meet the level of language proficiency needed to serve on the council.

Alejandrina Cabrera, San Luis Arizona City Council Candidate, Removed From Ballot Over Lack Of English Proficiency

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Since the first report claims that city council business is conducted in English, I don't have a problem with the fact that she was denied a place on the ballot.

But that just seems to beg the same question she brings up. In other words, why the requirement that city council business be conducted in English if "87% of residents speak a language other than English in their home and 98.7% are of Hispanic origin"?

I read about the assessment of her language skills and don't have an issue with that.

[Mexivoof]

Why not let the voters decide if she is competent to serve them! Can her English be that much worse than a recent two term President, or a long term Governor of California.
Back to being serious ... it is up to the voters who represents them, not some stinking judge!

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But that just seems to beg the same question she brings up. In other words, why the requirement that city council business be conducted in English if "87% of residents speak a language other than English in their home and 98.7% are of Hispanic origin"?

I read about the assessment of her language skills and don't have an issue with that.

I can understand a candidate for local office having an advantage if she were bilingual--to better interact with constitutents--but from what I've read it appears that she would need a translator for the council meetings, which are conducted in English.

Or, are you saying that local government business should be conducted in Spanish for districts with high Spanish speaking populations? Would they bring translators when city and state representatives need to communicate? (Since local city councils are often in direct contact with the state representatives of their districts).

[gingele]

This is interesting. Thanks for post this, Steve.

It appears that this case involves two laws, one that was passed in 2006 making English the official language of the State. I don't know much more about this law in regards to this context, but I don't think that having English being the "official language" would in and of itself be a barrier to her holding office, especially if she uses a translator.

The law that seems to be her hurdle is a law from 1910 passed by Congress that enabled AZ to become a state, and that law says: "The ability to read, write, speak, and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of the office without aid of an interpreter shall be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature".

So the question is whether this law is unreasonably vague. And on this I can definitely see there being an issue.

For example, this 1910 law would also make a deaf candidate ineligible.

I do not agree that official government business on any level should be conducted in a language other than English. But I also don't think that a candidate must meet some level of English proficiency as a condition to eligibility for office. I don't know how I feel about who should be responsible for procuring an interpreter and paying the costs of same.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

This is interesting. Thanks for post this, Steve.

It appears that this case involves two laws, one that was passed in 2006 making English the official language of the State. I don't know much more about this law in regards to this context, but I don't think that having English being the "official language" would in and of itself be a barrier to her holding office, especially if she uses a translator.

The law that seems to be her hurdle is a law from 1910 passed by Congress that enabled AZ to become a state, and that law says: "The ability to read, write, speak, and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of the office without aid of an interpreter shall be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature".

So the question is whether this law is unreasonably vague. And on this I can definitely see there being an issue.

For example, this 1910 law would also make a deaf candidate ineligible.

ASL is a separate language, but rarely considered a "foreign" one (merely a symbolic extension of English). In the case of ALS "speakers" they can read, write, and sign well enough to "sufficiently" do most tasks. So I don't think it is vague in that regard.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

ASL is a separate language, but rarely considered a "foreign" one (merely a symbolic extension of English). In the case of ALS "speakers" they can read, write, and sign well enough to "sufficiently" do most tasks. So I don't think it is vague in that regard.

You are correct, the law isn't vague in that regard, since it doesn't make any reference to what is or is not a "foreign language".

The 1910 law requires the candidate to "read, write, speak and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of office without an interpreter".

The law would exclude any deaf candidate that couldn't read lips sufficiently to meet the "understand English" requirement, and the law would also exclude any deaf candidate who could not verbally express themselves sufficiently to meet the "speak English language" requirement. In either situation, if a third-party would be required to facilitate communication, the deaf candidate would be excluded.

The vagueness I was referring to has to do with the two words: "sufficiently well". Who is to make that determination and using what assessment?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

You are correct, the law isn't vague in that regard, since it doesn't make any reference to what is or is not a "foreign language".

The 1910 law requires the candidate to "read, write, speak and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of office without an interpreter".

It makes no difference whether ASL is considered a "foreign language" or not. The law would exclude any deaf candidate that couldn't read lips sufficiently to meet the "understand English" requirement, and the law would also exclude any deaf candidate who could not verbally express themselves sufficiently to meet the "speak English language sufficiently well" requirement. In either situation, if a third-party would be required to facilitate communication, the deaf candidate would be excluded.

The vagueness I was referring to has to do with the two words: "sufficiently well". Who is to make that determination and using what assessment?

The Americans with Disabilities Act would trump the state law. Signing is "speaking," so the verbal aspect would not stand up in court, imo (that is, if a deaf candidate denied a spot on the ballot decided to sue).

Interpretors are also a condition of the law:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities, including the Deaf and people who are hard of hearing (Deaf/HH).

The law covers employment, government, public accommodations, and telecommunications. Each section of the ADA explains how the law protects the right of people with disabilities and what services must be provided in specific situations. In the ADA the term "auxiliary aids and services" refers to the means for achieving effective communication.

http://www.disabilitylawcenter.org/p...tion%20(2).pdf

The only ones excluded in my understanding are the illiterate (unable to read or write) and non-native speakers without enough knowledge to be considered fluent in English.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

The Americans with Disabilities Act would trump the state law. Signing is "speaking," so the verbal aspect would not stand up in court, imo (that is, if a deaf candidate denied a spot on the ballot decided to sue).

Interpretors are also a condition of the law:



http://www.disabilitylawcenter.org/p...tion%20(2).pdf

I don't disagree with the ADA getting around the issue with regards to a disabled candidate (someone deaf, or someone who has lost their vocal cords to cancer, etc.), but still it begs the question of whether one who is not independently proficient in expressive or receptive English is qualified to hold office?

And yes, signing is speaking, but speaking Spanish is speaking, too. The point is that the rest of the members of the city council could not understand either candidate without an interpreter. If you are comfortable with the notion of allowing a deaf candidate to use a third party to "translate" their "speech" into spoken English so that the rest of the council could understand them, then there should likewise be no issue for a Spanish-speaker to use a third party to translate their speech into spoken English.

It also doesn't address the vagueness of the language "sufficiently well" - which is where I see the real problem.

[Mr Cancun]

Problem solved, all Americans should just learn to read,write & speak Spanish.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

I don't disagree with the ADA getting around the issue with regards to a disabled candidate (someone deaf, or someone who has lost their vocal cords to cancer, etc.), but still it begs the question of whether one who is not independently proficient in expressive or receptive English is qualified to hold office.

Example? Besides the two we are discussing--deaf people and those not proficient in English--I'm not sure what you mean? Deaf people would be covered by the ADA. Non-native speakers would have to prove fluency.

It also doesn't address the vagueness of the language "sufficiently well" - which is where I see the real problem.

Well, in this case "sufficiently well" was determined by three separate linguistic assessments; all concluded that her skills in reading, writing, and understanding English did not reach the level of fluency. Fluency is not a vague qualifier. We have to assess students' levels of fluency all the time in foreign language instruction.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

And yes, signing is speaking, but speaking Spanish is speaking, too. The point is that the rest of the members of the city council could not understand either candidate without an interpreter. If you are comfortable with the notion of allowing a deaf candidate to use a third party to "translate" their "speech" into spoken English so that the rest of the council could understand them, then there should likewise be no issue for a Spanish-speaker to use a third party to translate their speech into spoken English.

Sorry, you added this and I have to say that I totally disagree.

A non-native speaker not being able to speak the language of their adopted country is not a disability, nor should it receive any of the protections of the ADA.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Example? Besides the two we are discussing--deaf people and those not proficient in English--I'm not sure what you mean? Deaf people would be covered by the ADA. Non-native speakers would have to prove fluency.

The point I am attempting to make is one I elaborated on in my post above via edit, but you move too fast for me! Here, let me restate it:

And yes, signing is speaking, but speaking Spanish is speaking, too. The point is that the rest of the members of the city council could not understand either candidate without an interpreter. If you are comfortable with the notion of allowing a deaf candidate to use a third party to "translate" their "speech" into spoken English so that the rest of the council could understand them, then there should likewise be no issue for a Spanish-speaker to use a third party to translate their speech into spoken English.

Originally Posted by melliedee

Well, in this case "sufficiently well" was determined by three separate linguistic assessments; all concluded that her skills in reading, writing, and understanding English did not reach the level of fluency. Fluency is not a vague qualifier. We have to assess students' levels of fluency all the time in foreign language instruction.

"The level of fluency" - what level of fluency? How is this quantified? I dare say that based on what I am reading in these articles about the makeup of the city Government in San Luis AZ, you'd have many currently-seated officials failing to pass your college-level English fluency exam.

Which just illustrates my point: what level of English fluency is to be required? It must be objectively quantifiable and used across the boards. Will only verbal expression be tested? What about written expression? And once the necessary level and type of fluency is established, then ALL candidates must be subject to this exam in order for it to be constitutional.

As of now, NONE of these things are set forth in the law, which makes the law vague and therefore problematic.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Sorry, you added this and I have to say that I totally disagree.

A non-native speaker not being able to speak the language of their adopted country is not a disability, nor should it receive any of the protections of the ADA.

That's not what I was saying, nor was it ever my point.

I'm more interested in the rationale behind the 1910 proscription and how it is being applied today.

I doubt that here in 2012 a single city council member would take issue with a deaf candidate using an interpreter. My question is - why not?

The fact that the deaf candidate cannot understand what is being said at city council meetings is no indicator of her ability to represent her constituents or otherwise fulfill her duties of office, correct?

If there is no problem with relying on an interpreter to facilitate communication between a deaf candidate and the rest of city council, then why would there be a problem with relying on an interpreter to facilitate communication with a Spanish-speking candidate and the city council?