06/07/2010 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Dan Tesch From: Beety, Patricia [PBeety @Imc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:37 PM To: Dan Tesch Subject: RE: Lino Lakes Hi Dan. Sorry I have been so slow to get you this info. I have started legal research a couple of times and ended up fording few clear answers - -the law on whether or not governments can require English as official language is conflicting and very confusing. Basically, government entities can and have adopted such policies but they have been challenged on many and varied grounds. It appears difficult to get them struck down, however, because there is not a good statutory remedy and standing issues (who can challenge these requirements) abound. I thought the following quote from a recent (2006) Oklahoma court case was informative on the issue: The issue,moreover, ap ears to grow increasingly divisive every year. Prior to 1981, only two states had laws declaring g" their %, , Wa, but by 1996, twenty -two states and forty municipalities had enacted III iii language legislation. Brian L. Porto, Annotation, "English -Only" Requirement for Conduct of Public Affairs, 94 A.L.R. 5th 537, § 2 (2004). As of 2003, twenty -three states had enacted some form of English language legislation, and since 2000, courts in Alaska, Utah, Oklahoma and Iowa have addressed their validity. See Kenya Hart, Defending Against A "Death by English": English -Only, Spanish -Only, and a Gringa's Suggestions for Community Support of Language Rights, 14 BERKELEY LA RAZA L.J. 177, 178 -79, 187 (2003). In an opinion decided in 2002, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled that an initiative petition proposing a state -wide English -only statute was constitutionally flawed because the proposed law ran afoul of the state constitution's free speech provisions. In re Initiative Petition No. 366, 46 P.3d 123, 125 -28 (Okla.2002). In announcing its decision, the court noted the intensity of the state -wide debate sparked by the initiative. Id. at 125. Moreover, powerful public policy groups on both sides of the debate continue to marshal substantial resources to support or defeat English -only legislation at the national, state and municipal levels. See Hart, supra, at 178 -79; see also Michael Albert Thomas Pagni, The Constitutionality of English -Only Provisions in the Public Employee Speech Arena: An Examination of Yniguez v. Arizoniansfor Official English, 24 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. . 247, 248 -49 (1996); Margaret Robertson, Abridging the Freedom of Non- English Speech: English -Only Legislation and the Free Speech Rights of Government Employees, 2001 BYU L. REV. 1641, 1641 -42. So, I guess the bottom line is that these policies are controversial and there are interest groups on both sides fighting legal battles over their validity. And no clear case law has been developed in Minnesota to help guide a municipality that chooses to venture down this road. Pat Patricia Y. Beety Attorney at Law Tel: (651) 281 -1270 Fax: (651) 281 -1298 pbeety(ii?I nc.orQ I www.lmc.org League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave. West l St. Paul, MN 55103 • Connecting & Innovating since 1913 1