(State Supreme) Court: Arizona can bar candidates over English proficiency

But it sets a bad precedent to say that the law must ban that person from even being allowed to run.

to regulate local elections under the Constitution. This will go to the Supremes.i

Passed by 74% of voters (http://www.azsos.gov/results/2006/general/BM103.htm). Thus, doesn't the state have the right to apply Prop. 103 in election eligibility law?

But not for English. If you are as dumb as Bush, Palin or Bachmann, you should NEVER be able to hold ANY office. Like running for VP and not knowing what that job is. That is outrageous to me. The fact that she didn't even take the time to read up on it says everything we need to know about her, she's an idiot.

so Spanish should be used too

Russian in Alaska?

English and Russian might come in handy in Alaska

Germany requires 6 years of a foreign language, they seem to have done better encouraging other languages among their people.

mandatory classes in HS for Spanish or other languages(student choice). Since english is the predominant language here, everyone should have a decent amount of knowledge in it.

because it is the language of commerce worldwide. To require a language just because hundreds of years ago some other country occupied the area is ridiculous.

Isn't this some sort of discrimination? Again?

Why is all this shit allowed against American citizens, in their own country?

And exactly who is setting this proficiency "standard"?

It's like a company I worked for...wanted Spanish "speakers"...but the testers were "proficient" in
Castilian Spanish (ya know, Spain spanish)...didn't work too well when the company's speakers were
in Mexico all the time. The Mexicans couldn't understand them! Hilarious. Needless to say...the program
finally got modified, although it took years.

...language.

In fact if they dont learn, their kids will be bilingual.

RIF

When the then Candidate Mr Obama became the front runner for the Democrats I predicted that if he became President there would be a huge and ugly backlash. Unfortunately, seeing the real ugliness in Washington my prediction was sadly true.

I am truly appalled at the divisiveness here in the United States in 2012 and I believe we are near the abyss on the timing to have what is happening with what has been called the Arab Spring.

This election is between those who have and those who need. A small group of elected in our Congress and Senate have sabotaged or blocked any Bill that is Progressive or proposed by President Obama and replaced with no other viable option. That is why the GOP is the Party of No.

Had Mrs.Clinton been the Presidential nominee and I am being quite honest we would not be in this pot of ugliness.

"WE THE PEOPLE" need to stand up and stop the GOP in their tracks and not allow them to steal another election.

We are a melting pot of humanity made up of many cultures and religions. We are not a singular society and have the right to live our lives as we choose.

When I was in the Navy we were one and defended the Constitution of the United States from all enemies Domestic & Foreign. We raised our hands to take that oath. Some of our leaders have forgotten that so we need to remind them that we the Citizens will not tolerate one Party with one Negative idea to win. It was not what our Founders so many years ago wanted, not then or not now in 2012.

"Had Mrs.Clinton been the Presidential nominee and I am being quite honest we would not be in this pot of ugliness. "

Do you really think they would not be trying to exploit her, trying to push her to be hard on brown people? You think they would not attack her as a woman as well?

their opinion of the candidate that doesnt speak english.
stupid democracy!

god, these whackjobs are truely afraid of immigrants.

but i'm sure this applies only to non-whites.

AZ was the last state re: football, enough said.

Is there an objective test or is this one of those "I know it when I see it" things?

Can the current majority party bar an opponent over imperfect syntax or an accent?

This really seems like something that should be decided by the voters on a case by case basis.

See this Arizona Daily Star story "": "Proposition 103 establishes English as the state's official language, 18 years after voters passed a similar proposition in 1988 that was later overruled by the Arizona and U.S. Supreme Courts." (See also .)

Thus, because Arizona law requires state business to be conducted in English, I think the state has a legal basis for requiring proficiency.

and it doesn't answer my questions about how proficiency is defined and who determines whether or not a candidate is proficient.

When a potential candidate files to be on the ballot, who evaluates their proficiency? Some county clerk? Some board? How do they do it?

There are dozens recognized in the US alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language

... of an interpreter is an issue, why would this not work both ways. If you were representing a district with a large non-english speaking population, would you be barred from seeking office if you did not speak their language fluently?

Hmm, I wonder if I agree with that. I mean, shouldn't Americans be allowed to vote for the candidate they choose? And if you're dealing with an ethnic population that is legally entitled to vote and they want to vote for someone who shares their language and cultural heritage, what basis is there to deny them that right? Okay, so such a representative probably won't be terribly effective if they are unable to communicate with the majority of other representatives who speak a different language, but, still, that's a practical hindrance, is there a reason why it needs to be a legal bar? My understanding from con law is that legal distinctions based upon race and/or ethnicity are automatically considered suspect and the state is consequently subject to the highest level of scrutiny to demonstrate that they indeed have a compelling interest that justifies the action. Where's the compelling interest on the part of the state here? That xenophobic legislators might hear Spanish being spoken in the state legislature? That doesn't sound very compelling to me. It sounds to me like the court is putting the cart before the horse on this one: they're coming up with reasons why non-English speakers aren't guaranteed a right to run for office, but aren't requiring the state to meet its burden of proving why they're entitled to discriminate based upon language.

Dumbasses... Always, will they fall afoul of The Law of Unintended Consequences.