Bilingual Ballots

Enfranchisement of Language Minorities

During the 1975 reauthorization of the VRA, Congress turned its attention to the enfranchisement of language minorities, in part because of Title VI's entailment of national origin and language. Congress added minority-language assistance provisions, which were designed to provide meaningful access to voting by eliminating language barriers for citizens with limited English proficiency (LEP).

These provisions were designed as a partial remedy for the effects of past discrimination against language minorities. The provisions established [Page 341]triggers based on the concentration of language minorities and the rate of voting registration of these minorities. These triggers included bilingual ballots, the prohibition of English-only elections materials, bilingual voting assistance, and the establishment of preclearance requirements. Currently, these minority language provisions cover 31 states, either in whole (Texas, Alaska, Arizona, California, New Mexico) or in part.

Spanish language assistance is the most common, but a growing number of jurisdictions are required to provide bilingual voting assistance in Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, and Japanese. After Spanish, voting assistance in Native American languages is the most prevalent, especially in Alaska. The bilingual ballot and voting assistance provisions have had a significant impact on voter registration and turnouts of language minorities, particularly for Native Americans and Hispanics. Since the 1992 amendments to the VRA, which increased provision coverage, Asian Americans have also seen much higher levels of registration and turnout. In addition, the number of minority elected officials has dramatically increased, due in part to the growing enfranchisement of LEP citizens.

Resistance and Arguments

Unfortunately, there has been substantial resistance to the bilingual ballot provisions, both at the state and federal levels, even though evidence strongly indicates that the VRA language provisions are necessary to prevent current and future patterns of voting discrimination. During the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA, some members of Congress unsuccessfully attempted to repeal or limit these provisions, arguing that they were a costly unfunded mandate and that LEP voters should accept English as the “language glue” of the American multiethnic immigrant melting pot.

...