|
||||
Federal Court Strikes Down Alabama English Drivers License Exam On November 30, the United States Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down Alabama's policy of giving drivers license examinations in English. The court said that Alabama would have to provide services in languages other than English if the state received federal funds. The case, Sandoval v. Hagan, is the first to say that virtually every State rule requiring English can be challenged under the federal civil rights laws. Steve Workings, Executive Director of ELPAC, said, "If this decision stands, it could destroy everything we've worked for. You can't have an official language if the court says it's discriminatory." In 1990, more than 90% of Alabama's voters adopted a ballot initiative declaring English the official language of the state; Alabama changed its drivers license procedures to give the exam in English following that vote. Martha andoval, a legal immigrant from Mexico who could not speak English well, claimed that Alabama's English-language drivers license test discriminated against her. She said that, because Alabama got federal transportation funds, the state had to provide services in any language an applicant requested. Alabama replied that it had problems with cheating and safety when it gave multi-lingual exams, and that its voters had overwhelmingly declared English the official language of the state. Ignoring more than three dozen cases holding that choice of language is within a state's power, the federal appeals court agreed with Sandoval and struck down the Alabama rule. This was the first decision to use the federal civil rights laws to strike down a state's choice of language for its own operations. The decision will have substantial impact because the court's opinion was written so broadly. For example, the court said that a person's choice of language can be equated to the person's national origin. Since federal civil rights laws protect against national origin discrimination, if language is the same as national origin, virtually all language-based rules can be challenged as discriminatory. Alabama filed a request to have the case reheard by the Atlanta appeals court; such requests are usually denied. English Language Advocates, a major official-English organization, filed a friend of the court brief in support of Alabama's request for another hearing; ELA's attorney is ELPAC Chairman Barnaby Zall. If the appeals court doesn't rehear the case, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court. |
||||
The
ELPAC Report 