OKLAHOMA CITY – A proposal to declare that English is the official language of Oklahoma is a defensive measure to protect the state from enforcement of an unconstitutional, extortionary executive order issued by former President Bill Clinton, said the bill’s author.
Executive Order 13166, issued by Clinton in August 2000, orders governmental entities that accept federal funding to “provide meaningful access” to their services to persons who are not proficient in the English language, also referred to as “limited English proficiency” or LEP persons.
Each agency that provides federal financial assistance to state and local entities was ordered to develop guidelines to ensure all recipients of federal funds comply with the provisions of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
“Agencies are threatened with the loss of federal funding on the basis of this executive order, which is unconstitutional and unenforceable,” said state Rep. Randy Terrill. The executive order creates an unfunded mandate on state and local entities, which are compelled to spend extra money on printing and translating official government materials into foreign languages, he said.
Though 30 states have enacted legislation declaring English as their official language, the federal government has not once tried to take a state to court for violation of Executive Order 13166, said Terrill.
Yet, no state has ever taken their preference for the English language to the point of outright defiance of Executive Order 13166.
In some states, the declaration of the official language is largely symbolic; in other states, the measure carries some legal weight and prevents the government from issuing some materials in other languages.
But each state makes what Terrill calls “common sense” exceptions to the law when governments compelled to protect a valid public interest, particularly in the area of health care. And the language of the executive order is broad enough to make it difficult to prove a violation has taken place, requiring that certain population thresholds of non-English speakers be met before governments must provide services and materials in other languages.
Senate Bill 163 is designed to enact a legal basis for the state to protect itself from litigation on the grounds that Oklahoma does not provide driver’s license testing materials in all of the dozens of languages spoken within the state’s borders. Terrill made note of a recent incident in Bartlesville, wherein a man issued a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Transportation because his Iranian relatives were not able to take the written portion of a driver’s license test in the language they spoke, Farsi.
Terrill said the formal complaint could eventually give way to litigation, though no lawsuit has yet been filed in the matter. When and if someone were to file such a lawsuit, the state currently has no law on the books stating that government agencies cannot be forced to issue official documents in languages other than English.
Previous measures to declare English as the official language of Oklahoma have failed, but the version of SB 163 which passed the state House of Representatives and is currently awaiting a vote in the state Senate lists a number of exceptions designed to allay the objections earlier measures had faced. The measure would allow the state to use another language for certain official actions, including teaching a foreign language in schools, teaching children who are not fluent in English, use of Braille and American Sign Language, and to create or promote mottos or other phrases from other languages which are commonly used “as part of communications otherwise in English.”
The exceptions also apply to relations with Native American tribes, to protect the rights of victims of crime and criminal defendants, and to promote trade, commerce and tourism. Private individuals and companies would not be prohibited from speaking or doing business in other languages. The measure also allows an exemption for areas where the use of another language is specifically required by federal or state law.
Terrill said neither he nor anyone else could definitively describe the total effect the latest version of Senate Bill 163 would have upon a multitude of state services. But constitutional amendments are necessarily vague in certain aspects to allow the Legislature to make changes when necessary without requiring another constitutional amendment to go to a vote of the people. The amendment would have to be followed by enacting legislation that is more specific.
The constitutional amendment would allow the Legislature to pass laws enacting new exemptions if needed, and clarifying how the amendment should be interpreted.
No comments:
Post a Comment