- The Washington Times - Friday, November 11, 2005

The Voting Rights Act has long been regarded as one of the nation’s most successful civil rights laws, ending decades of discrimination that disenfranchised millions of black voters in the Deep South.

But Congress is considering extending certain provisions of the act, which otherwise would lapse in 2007. One provision, usually referred to as Section 5, requires specific jurisdictions to submit to the Justice Department for pre-clearance any proposed changes in voting procedures, such as moving polling places or redrawing district boundaries.

Another provision, known as Section 203 or the Bilingual Election Requirements, forces hundreds of jurisdictions across the country to print ballots in languages other than English — an expensive and divisive practice. Neither section of the act should be reauthorized, but Congress may find it difficult to do the right thing.

Section 5 was included in the original Voting Rights Act in 1965 because many Southern states kept changing their voting laws and procedures to keep blacks from voting. In 1965, for example, only about 6 percent of blacks in Mississippi were registered to vote, having been subjected to literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation and even death threats to prevent them from voting. Yet only two years the act was passed, some 60 percent of eligible black voters were registered.

Now, 40 years later, many of the very jurisdictions subject to the onerous provisions of Section 5 are represented by black elected officials who clearly have no reason to try to change voting laws to discriminate against fellow black citizens. It makes no sense to require jurisdictions that have long abandoned racial discrimination in voting to seek permission from Washington each time they want to move a polling place, extend voting hours or adopt more liberal registration procedures. Nonetheless, the NAACP and other civil rights groups will cry foul if Congress decides to allow this provision of the act to sunset — as was intended even in the original act.

Section 5 was supposed to be a temporary part of the law. It was first due to expire in 1970 — but Congress then extended it, and again in 1975, 1982 and 1992, and it is up for reauthorization again in two years.

Congress enacted the bilingual ballot provisions in 1975, and they, too, were meant to be temporary but have become a permanent fixture of federal voting procedures in many areas of the country. Today, hundreds of counties in 30 states must provide election materials in several languages, including Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and various American Indian and Native Alaskan languages.

According to a 1997 study by the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, Los Angeles County alone spent an additional $1.1 million to provide multilingual ballots, while two other California counties, Orange and San Francisco, spent another million, and New York City spent more than half a million dollars. By 2002, L.A. County spent more than $3 million on bilingual assistance. Yet many jurisdictions have little idea whether these congressionally mandated materials are even necessary, much less used.

Congress passed the Bilingual Election Requirements in 1975 without any showing of widespread discrimination against so-called language minorities, mostly then Mexican-Americans. Unlike blacks, Hispanics were never systematically excluded from voting, and even held elected office for decades in the Southwest. In the mid-‘70s, two U.S. governors were Hispanic: Jerry Apodaca of New Mexico and Raul Castro of Arizona, which at the time had a Hispanic population of less than 10 percent. In addition, a U.S. senator, five congressmen, and hundreds of state and local officials were Hispanic. These statistics hardly show a pattern of denial of due process or voting discrimination — the only constitutional bases on which Congress has authority to order states to provide bilingual ballots.

Virtually all U.S.-born Hispanics, Asians and other native language minorities read English. What’s more, all naturalized citizens, except for those over 50 years of age, must demonstrate an understanding of English to become citizens. Even if there are a few citizens who need assistance voting because they cannot read English, that could be provided easily without requiring states to print ballots in multiple languages, through oral assistance or by letting private groups provide translated material.

It’s time Congress dropped this requirement that does more to Balkanize America than to assist eligible voters. But even Republicans lawmakers seem to lack the stomach for this fight.

Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide