|
|
Immediate Attention Contact: Jayne Park April 28, 1998 202-296-2300 Washington -- Today, the Arizona State Supreme Court unanimously struck down Arizona's English-Only Law as being unconstitutional in Ruiz v. Hull. The law had been passed as an Arizona ballot initiative in 1988 with only 50.5% of the vote. It was challenged in this case by a group of state elected officials and employees. The Arizona State Supreme Court held that it violated the Freedom of Speech provision of the First Amendment because it adversely impacts the constitutional rights of nonEnglish speaking persons with regard to their obtaining access to their government and limits the political speech of elected officials and public employees. The Court said, "By requiring that government officials communicate only in a language which is incomprehensible to nonEnglish speaking persons, the Amendment effectively bars communication itself." The Court also held that it also violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment because "it impinges upon both the fundamental right to participate equally in the political process and the right to petition the government for redress."
The court noted that the law's stated goal "to promote English as a common language does not require a general prohibition on non-English usage. English can be promoted without prohibiting the use of other languages by state and local governments." A separate challenge in federal court had gone all the way to the Supreme Court and was one of the last cases that Ninth Circuit Judge Thomas Tang had participated in before he died. Persuaded by Judge Tang's arguments, the Ninth Circuit had also held the law to be unconstitutional, but because of procedural rules the U.S. Supreme Court had decided that the Ninth Circuit should not have acted on the case and left it for the Arizona state courts to decide. "We are elated," stated Consortium Executive Director Karen K. Narasaki. "This is a very important decision. These initiatives have ridden on anti-immigrant sentiment. The Arizona State Supreme Court agreed with Judge Tang's belief that there is a critical difference between encouraging the use of English and repressing the use of other languages." Just last month, the House of Representatives voted on a measure very similar to the Arizona initiative and almost passed it. Narasaki noted, "We hope that this ruling will settle this question once and for all. These measures are divisive, anti-democratic and unconstitutional. Elected officials and government employees need to be able to communicate with the people they serve and they should be allowed to do so. Every American, regardless of their ability to speak English, has a right to talk to the government."
The Consortium together with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Consortium's Affiliates, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, had filed an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of the state law on behalf of over a dozen Asian Pacific American and Hispanic organizations, including the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Arizona Asian American Bar Association, Community Service Society of New York, Hispanic Bar Association, Multicultural Education and Training Association, National Association for Bilingual Education, National Association for Bilingual Education, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Association of Korean Americans. National Korean American Service and Education Consortium and the Organization of Chinese Americans. According to the 1990 census, 6% of Arizonans who are limited English proficient are Asian Pacific American. |
|
