home > newsroom ACLU Withdraws Appeal of Official English Decision Cites Court’s Reading of Statute as “Largely Symbolic” and Attorney General’s Positive Step FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, September 4, 2001 SALT LAKE CITY--The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah announced today that it has withdrawn its appeal of a March 5, 2001 court decision that found Utah’s Official English statute “largely symbolic.” It did so in light of a decision by the Utah Attorney General to designate an Assistant Attorney General to advise state agencies as questions arise concerning the statute. The goal will be to ensure that state agencies do not deny language minorities equal access to government processes, programs and services based on a misreading or misapplication of the statute. Stephen Clark, ACLU of Utah Legal Director, hailed the parties’ settlement as a way to shift the focus from litigation to addressing the challenges faced by Utahns who are not yet proficient in English. “The remarkable growth of Utah’s minority communities requires that we all redouble our efforts to make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to participate in the economic, social and political life of our State. We are pleased the Attorney General’s office has taken this positive step to help state agencies and employees understand the very limited scope of the Official English statute.” In November 2000, Utah voters approved Ballot Initiative A, “English as the Official Language of Utah.” The law provided in part: “The English language is the sole language of government.” It also provided several exceptions, so that languages other than English could be used, for example, when required by law, for public health and safety, and in public education. Concerned that the measure would be read generally to prohibit the government and the people from communicating in any language other than English, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of elected and appointed officials, government employees, nonprofit organizations, and an individual plaintiff challenging the law’s constitutionality. The lawsuit relied on an Arizona Supreme Court decision striking down a similarly prohibitive measure in that state. The Multi-Cultural Legal Center of Utah, the ACLU of Northern California, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Asian American Legal Defense Fund, The Legal Aid Society -- Employment Law Center, and several private attorneys provided assistance. After a trial in January 2001, the Utah district court issued a 15-page ruling dramatically limiting the law. According to the court, in order to pass constitutional muster the law cannot be read to prohibit government employees and elected officials from communicating in languages other than English. Similarly, the court concluded that the law’s exceptions must be broadly construed to permit the government to provide essential services, including drivers’ license exams, in languages other than English. Commenting on the decision, Clark said: “The ACLU and the individuals and organizations we represented in challenging Utah’s Official English statute have carefully considered the district court’s conclusion that the statute ‘is, in all but one minor respect, descriptive rather than proscriptive, prohibitive of nothing.’ We have also carefully considered the court’s conclusion that the statute’s exceptions must be ‘broadly construed’ to cover virtually all government services. Given those two conclusions, we believe we have achieved the main objective of the litigation: to make sure that state and local governments in Utah will be free to communicate with the public in languages other than English in order to meet the needs and serve the interests of those with limited English proficiency.” Clark continued: “While we are pleased that the court rejected the sweeping prohibitive effects sought by the Initiative’s backers, we remain concerned that even a symbolic statute might be used, however inappropriately, as a pretext for discrimination against people with limited English proficiency. We therefore call upon state and local authorities to address any instances of discrimination that might result from an overzealous and legally groundless effort to enforce ‘English Only’ in Utah.” Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, whose office represented the defendants in the litigation, added: “I was on record as opposing Initiative A as unnecessary and potentially divisive. However, once the voters approved the Initiative, it was my duty to aggressively defend the law. We did so successfully. It is now my concern that the law not be improperly read to prohibit vital communications between the government and the people, and thereby to deny language minorities an equal voice in our State and in our communities. We agree that the district court’s opinion should effectively forestall any effort to silence those who are not yet proficient in English or to cut off their access to government. Just in case, though, we think it is fair and prudent to designate a person in our office to advise state agencies and employees on any question that might arise with respect to the Official English statute.” --end--

ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2013 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850