Voting Rights Act Does Not Require Translation Of Recall Petition Into Minority Languages
By John Scheuring
An en banc panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated an earlier decision by a three-judge panel that, pursuant to the minority language provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act ("VRA") (42 USC §1973aa-1a), California recall petitions must be translated into minority languages. The Ninth Circuit now joins two other circuits that have found voter-circulated petitions need not be translated into other languages to comply with Section 203 of the VRA. The majority held that these petitions were not materials "provided by" the state and, therefore, petition proponents are not required to comply with the minority language provisions of the VRA. An interesting aspect of the decision is the courts belief that a translation requirement would have a chilling effect on the petition process itself. The Court reasoned that if a translation were to be required for a petition in Orange County, the petition would have to be printed in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese, the costs of which would fall directly on the proponents of the petition, which may deter participation in the electoral process. This decision will also end speculation that the VRA might also apply to initiative and referendum petitions.
For more information please contact John Scheuring. John Scheuring is an attorney in the Real Estate Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.
An en banc panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated an earlier decision by a three-judge panel that, pursuant to the minority language provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act ("VRA") (42 USC §1973aa-1a), California recall petitions must be translated into minority languages. The Ninth Circuit now joins two other circuits that have found voter-circulated petitions need not be translated into other languages to comply with Section 203 of the VRA. The majority held that these petitions were not materials "provided by" the state and, therefore, petition proponents are not required to comply with the minority language provisions of the VRA. An interesting aspect of the decision is the courts belief that a translation requirement would have a chilling effect on the petition process itself. The Court reasoned that if a translation were to be required for a petition in Orange County, the petition would have to be printed in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese, the costs of which would fall directly on the proponents of the petition, which may deter participation in the electoral process. This decision will also end speculation that the VRA might also apply to initiative and referendum petitions.
For more information please contact John Scheuring. John Scheuring is an attorney in the Real Estate Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.
Neither the content on this blog nor any transmissions between you and Sheppard Mullin through this blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers.
By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval, you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.
Post A Comment / Question
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.