Legal Analysis of Proposals to Make English the Official Language of the United States Government

This document also available in PDF Image . A contemporary political movement to install English as the official language of the United States has continued to gather momentum since Congress in the mid-1980's first held hearings on various proposals to amend the Federal Constitution to achieve that end. Although federal efforts to date have fallen short of their goal, greater success has been achieved in promoting official English laws at the state level. Presently, twenty-one states have laws declaring English to be the official state language. These state laws have usually been enacted by direct popular votes on referenda by substantial margins. In response, renewed congressional efforts to codify English as the official language of the Federal Government by statute have displaced the constitutional amendment approach of earlier years. This trend continued in the 104th Congress when the House passed H.R. 123 , declaring English the official language of the United States Government and restricting other linguistic usage in the conduct of "official" governmental business. The measure died in the Senate but has been reintroduced in the current Congress along with other House and Senate proposals. H.R. 123 and S. 323 , the principal measures before the current Congress, require that all "official business" of the Federal Government--including any "enforceable" domestic "governmental actions, documents, or policies"--be conducted in English. These bills would also create a private "entitlement"to "communicate with" and "receive information from" the Federal Government in English and an "affirmative obligation" on the part of governmental representatives "to preserve and enhance the role of English." A third bill, H.R. 622 , would commit the Federal Government to "promote and support" English usage "among United State citizens" and to "enforce" naturalization requirements of English proficiency. It would also repeal federal bilingual education and voting requirements. The Bill Emerson Language Empowerment Act of 1997, as carried forward from the substitute version of H.R. 123 which passed the House last year, differs considerably in scope and exceptions to coverage from its Senate counterpart. Thus, H.R. 123 specifically covers "publications, income tax forms, and informational materials" while it may be questioned whether all such documents would be "official" government business under the general definition in S. 323 . Similarly, the House bill adopts a "rule of construction" permitting oral communications by federal "representatives"--meaning federal officers, employees, and Members of Congress--in languages other than English. Consequently, only governmental information in written or documentary form would be subject to the House bill's official English requirements while the status of oral communications under the S. 323 is less clearcut. Exceptions written into both bills, however, would permit linguistic diversity in governmental communications concerned with teaching of foreign languages; national security and international relations, trade, or commerce; compilation of census information; public health and safety matters; and the conduct of criminal proceedings.