THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, March 26, 1996 TAG: 9603260323
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JOAN BISKUPIC, THE WASHINGTON POST
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long : 122 lines
Confronting one of the nation's most divisive topics, the Supreme Court announced Monday it will review the constitutionality of an Arizona law that makes English the official language and forces state employees to conduct business in English only.
The 1988 law, an amendment to Arizona's Constitution, was challenged by a state employee who handled medical malpractice claims against the state and spoke both Spanish and English to claimants, depending on their need. The worker, Maria-Kelley Yniguez, said the ``English-only'' mandate violated her right to free speech.
The Arizona conflict has played out nationally as 23 states have made English their official language. Legislation to do the same on the federal level is pending in Congress.
The outcome of the case, which will be argued in the fall and decided in the first half of 1997, could have a widespread effect on an increasingly multilingual nation.
Like the debate on immigration, the controversy also invokes anxieties about foreigners and perceived assaults on a traditional way of life.
Behind the dispute are two conflicting sets of American values. One stresses the need for a common culture that speeds assimilation of foreign-born children and reduces the ``Babel'' of multiple languages. The other tradition emphasizes the benefits of a tolerance that avoids repression of languages and permits a variety of cultures to flourish.
The conflict is part of the presidential campaign, too, as GOP candidates Patrick J. Buchanan and Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole of Kansas, the party's presumptive nominee, have proclaimed they want the American people to speak a single language. They have offered various proposals for English only in public schools and the federal government. President Clinton has said opposition to bilingual culture conflicts with the nation's values.
The question in the Arizona case is whether forcing state employees to communicate only in English violates their rights to free speech. (``English-only'' restrictions vary among the states. Most are merely symbolic declarations that make the English language official. Arizona has gone the farthest, according to court filings, by demanding that state employees conduct all their business in English.)
Virginia's English language law is more symbolic than substantive. Enacted in 1981, the law says that local schools cannot be required to teach courses - other than foreign languages - in a language other than English. But the law does not bar the practice if a school board so chooses.
Earlier this year, the General Assembly extended the provisions of the law to written material provided by state and local agencies. It provides that no state agency or local government ``shall be required to provide . . . or prohibited from providing'' documents in a language other than English.
The bill is awaiting the signature of Gov. George F. Allen.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision the Supreme Court agreed to review, said the Arizona law violates government workers' free speech. By a 6-5 vote, the appeals court ruled that a person's choice of language was a speech right. It said requiring official acts to be conducted only in English also discriminated against Hispanics and other minorities because it ``significantly interferes with the ability of the non-English speaking populace of Arizona to receive information and ideas.''
``The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as those born with English on the tongue,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority, using language from a 1923 Supreme Court case. ``Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution - a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.''
In appealing that decision to the Supreme Court, a group known as Arizonans for Official English argue that a public employee's choice of language is not a constitutionally protected speech right. The group referred to a dissenting opinion by 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski countering the majority's view that government employees have a personal stake in the words they speak in their official capacities.
``The force of this idea will turn government employment into a platform for endless attacks on government policy,'' Kozinski said.
Proponents of ``official English'' say states should be able to encourage people to speak a single language. David A. Price, a lawyer with the Washington Legal Foundation, which, along with 21 members of Congress, submitted a ``friend of the court'' brief in favor of the Arizona law, stressed the unifying nature of a common language.
``The idea that it is exclusionary overlooks the history of the country, in which generation upon generation of immigrants have come here and learned English and succeeded,'' Price said Monday.
While the Supreme Court agreed to review the basic constitutional question, it also threw up a flare that its ruling could be more procedural than substantive. It issued an order saying it would also examine whether the group Arizonans for Official English had legal standing to intervene in the case.
After the state of Arizona lost the case at the district court level, then-Gov. Rose Mofford, who had criticized the amendment, did not have the state launch an appeal. So the citizens group intervened to take the matter to the 9th Circuit. The appeals court ruled that because the organization was the principal sponsor of the ballot initiative, it had ``a strong interest'' in defending the amendment in the courts and could step into the state's position.
The Supreme Court also said it would consider whether Yniguez, who was never subject to any state action and now works for a private firm, still has a case. MEMO: Knight-Ridder New Service and Virginian-Pilot Richmond bureau reporter
David M. Poole contributed to this report.
ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
OTHER RULINGS
In other action Monday, the court:
Agreed to use an Oregon case to decide whether people may use the
Endangered Species Act to file lawsuits accusing the federal
government of doing too much to protect a species.
Agreed to decide in a Kansas case whether people must pay income
taxes on punitive damages they are awarded in personal-injury
lawsuits.
Turned down Louisiana's bid to deny Medicaid-funded abortions for
women who become pregnant because of rape or incest. Federal law
allows Medicaid-funded abortions for such women.
KEYWORDS: SUPREME COURT ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENGLISH-ONLY LAW RULING
ABORTION VIRGINIA by CNB