home > newsroom Utah Judge Guts “English-Only” Statute, Saying It Does Not Prohibit Government Employees from Using Languages Other than English However, March 5th Decision Contains Troubling Language Regarding Non-English Communications FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, March 6, 2001 SALT LAKE CITY--In a decision issued yesterday, Third District Court Judge Ronald Nehring upheld the rights of government employees and elected officials to communicate with the public they serve in languages other than English. Judge Nehring also made clear that the state can continue to give drivers license exams in languages other than English. The decision was in response to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Initiative A, “English as the Official Language of Utah.” Passed last November, the statute declares English to be the “sole language of government,” and, with limited exceptions, requires that “all official documents, transactions, proceedings, meetings, or publications” be in English. Brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah on behalf of elected and appointed officials, government employees, nonprofit organizations, and an individual plaintiff with limited English proficiency, the lawsuit claimed that the new law unconstitutionally restricts the ability of government representatives to communicate and provide services in languages other than English, and denies limited English speakers fair and equal access to their government. Stephen Clark, legal director for the ACLU of Utah, stated that yesterday’s decision essentially gutted the statute of what the initiative sponsors hoped to accomplish, which was a system in which all routine communications between the public and the government must be in English. Instead, he declared that the law is now largely symbolic. As the court noted, this “is not what the many supporters of [the statute] had in mind.” Clark expressed the plaintiffs’ appreciation for the court’s implicit acknowledgment that any statute requiring routine government business to be exclusively in English would put the government in an unconstitutional straitjacket and trample the rights of language minorities. However, Clark also expressed concern about the ruling because it explicitly states that government communications in languages other than English cannot be considered “official.” He warned that “by creating a language-based distinction between ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ government information and services, the ruling essentially creates a two-tiered system that relegates language minorities to second class citizenship.” James Yapias, Chair of the State of Utah Hispanic Advisory Council and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, echoed Clark’s concerns. “I believe that yesterday’s decision does little to clarify the extent of the statute and that different people will have different interpretations of the law. I’m worried that this ruling will create more problems and confusion at the state level.” Clark stated that the court’s interpretation of the statute in a way that is not what its supporters had in mind, coupled with the threat of language discrimination based on the distinction between “official” and “unofficial” communications, is “sufficiently grave to warrant careful consideration of an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.” Local cooperating attorneys in the case include Marlene Gonzalez from the Multicultural Legal Center and Milo Steven Marsden and Adam Price from Bendinger, Crockett, Peterson & Casey. For a complete copy of the decision, see http://www.acluutah.org. --end--

ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2008 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850