Constitutional Clash: When English-Only Meets Voting Rights

Michael A. Zuckerman

Jones Day

October 16, 2009

Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 28, 2010

This paper examines the constitutional vulnerability of English-only laws as they relate to voting materials. The topic is timely in light of King v. Mauro, a recent Iowa decision that drew national attention by interpreting a state statute to bar non-English voter registration materials. In short, this paper argues that English-only policies as applied to voting are constitutionally suspect. After providing background about the English-only movement and the recent high-profile Iowa decision, the paper considers complex and uncertain areas of constitutional law, outlining how one might argue that English-only laws violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. In the end, the nation has an important choice to make: encourage participation in the electoral process, or use voting rights as means to disenfranchise language minority citizens. If the nation continues down the latter path, civil rights lawyers must be ready to respond.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 25

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: October 19, 2009 ; Last revised: July 22, 2010

Suggested Citation

Zuckerman, Michael A., Constitutional Clash: When English-Only Meets Voting Rights (October 16, 2009). Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 28, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1489911

Contact Information

Michael A. Zuckerman (Contact Author)
Jones Day ( email )
Chicago, IL 60610
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,197
Downloads: 307
Download Rank: 65,438

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.329 seconds