Wrong in Any Language

Proposition 63, the initiative that would declare English to be the state’s official language, is a mean-spirited, deceptive and dangerous constitutional amendment that would invite costly litigation. It must be defeated.

Even if Proposition 63 had no legal effect, and a vote in favor of it was merely symbolic, the initiative would be insulting and demeaning to the thousands of foreigners and immigrants who live in California and help enrich the state both culturally and economically. Despite the many studies that prove how badly these people, and their children, want to learn English--and are doing so despite obstacles like insufficient funding for English-language classes by the state and federal governments--Proposition 63 would do nothing positive to help them. If anything, its message is negative: This is America, speak English! Such a small-minded attitude is unworthy of a state that prides itself on being in the forefront of progress and change not just for this country but also for the entire world.

In fact, proponents of the initiative try to make Proposition 63 sound harmless, and even innocuous. They claim that it only affirms the obvious: that English is a common bond among all U.S. citizens, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, and that its role should be enhanced. What they do not point out is that the language of their proposed amendment is so loosely written that it could, once approved by the voters, result in many complex and expensive lawsuits. Not only does the proposition’s language order the Legislature to “take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English . . . is preserved and enhanced,� but it would give any California resident or business the right to sue the state in order to enforce the amendment.

The practical effect of this language would be to invite litigation, and not just on complex and admittedly controversial issues like bilingual education in the public schools. It could even result in lawsuits challenging multilingual government services that any reasonable person would agree are necessary, like Spanish-speaking operators for Los Angeles’ 911 emergency telephone number or translators in the state’s courts. The proponents of Proposition 63 insist that such litigation is not their intent, but, even if one takes them at their word, what is to prevent less responsible people from using the proposed amendment’s vague language to stir up legal mischief?

Californians are just too smart, too generous, too open-minded and too confident to let themselves be fooled into approving such an unnecessary and trouble-causing amendment to their Constitution. They should vote no on Proposition 63 in overwhelming numbers.