Amicus Curiae Brief — Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHOORITIBS .........ccccces ill

STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE .. |

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........ es > oe

EEE 7

I. ARTICLE XXVIII FORECLOSES DIRECT

ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY AND

ABOUT GOVERNMENT FOR ARIZONANS

WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ... 7

A. Article XX VIII Impairs Communication

with State Employees and Elected

Officials in Languages Other Than

iT ir te ie ane 6b 646% 6 6 < 9

B. Article XXVIII Restricts the

Educational Opportunities of Non-

English-Speaking Arizonams ........ 1]

c. Article XXVIII Suppresses the

Dissemination of Information Intended

to Promote Public Awareness and

eR SE el 14

Il. ARTICLE XXVIII IMPEDES

COMMUNICATION WITH THE

GOVERN™“&ENT BY NON-ENGLISH-

SPEAKING ARIZONANS BY IMPOSING

ENORMOUS BURDENS ON CBOS ....... 16

A. Funding for CBOs Is Limited ....... 16

B. Forcing Private Parties to Disseminate

Information About Government Hinders

Receipt of Accurate Speech ......... 17

Ill.

‘i

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

ARTICLE XXVIII VIOLATES THE FIRST

AMENDMENT AND ITS PROTECTION OF

THE RIGHT TO KNOW AND THE FREE

FLOW OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION ....

A. Article XXVIII Abridges the Right of

Non-English-Speaking Arizonans to

Receive Information From and About

ARTICLE XXVIII DOES NOT PROMOTE

ANY OF THE ASSERTED STATE

INTERESTS 2... wee cece eee ecesnes

A. Article XXVIII Does Not Promote

. Article XXVIII Does Not Promote

19

ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) ... 22

Board of County Comm'rs, Wabaunsee County,

Kansas v. Umbehr, 64 U.S.L.W. 4682

6 > & eee 17

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............ 21

Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (Sth Cir. 1981) .. 12

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,

ee Ne 22, 23

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ... 20, 21

Grosjean v. American Press Co.,

ES ee Saee ea 20

Gulf, Colo. & S.F. Ry. v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98 (1895) . . 22

Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) ........ 22

Ibanez v. Florida Dep't of Business and

Professional Regulation, 114 S. Ct. 2084 (1994) .... 22

Lamont v. Postmaster Gen.,

oe eck boxe. cad, 20, 21

Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia,

I a Ne 7, 21

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) ...... 22, 24

Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966)............ 7

New York Times Co. v. United States,

Se Sy CUO ai een oo de 6 wiki oh oe we 21

iV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

PAGE

Romer v. Evans, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996). ......... 25

Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843 (1974) .. 23

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) .......... 21

United States v. International Union United Auto.

Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957) ......--25255- 25

United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 re 21

Virginia State Bd of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens

Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976) ....... 7, 23

West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,

i 2. te 7. errs ree ee 27, 29

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) ........ 24

Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English,

69 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc),

cert. granted, 64 U.S.L.W. 3635

Uf 2 -%. Pere eee 4,7, 10

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

8 U.S.C. § 1101 ef seg. (1994)..........-.0-0-- 8

20 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7602 (1994) ..... 2... eee neee §

20 U.S.C. § 7402(aX(SVC) (1994) .... 2.2 ee ee eee 12

25 U.S.C. § 2904 (1994) 2... ec eee eee ees 27

42 U.S.C. § 254b(f)(3)(J) (1994)... 2 2 ee ee ee ees s

42 U.S.C. § 254c(e)(3)J) (1994)... 2. ee eee ees 8

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

PAGE

42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-la(b) (1994) ............... 8

Ariz. Const. Art. XXVMl, § 1(2) ............ 10, 11

Ariz. Const. Art. XXVMl, § 1(3)a) ............. 10

Ariz. Const. Art. XXVIII, § 1(3)a)fii). . 2... eee. 15

Ariz. Const. Art. XXVIIl, § 1(3)aiili) ... 2.2... 14

Ariz. Const. Art. XXVIIl, § 1(3)aiv) ........... 10

GE BB ee ko 0d 0 's's sheen 9

Ariz. Const. Art. XXVIll, § 3(2)(a) ............. 12

Ariz. Const. Art. XXVIll, § 3(2)d) ............. 15

Sl. GE GE Bs 04 os cows seeks tas 9, 16

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 6-651(A)(2) (1995) ........... 14

RULES

Ariz. Admin. Code § R7-2-401(B)(1) (1995) ....... 13

Ariz. Admin. Code § R7-2-401(C)(7) (1995) ....... 13

Ariz. Admin. Code § R7-2-401(F)(3) (1995) ....... 13

Ariz. Admin. Code § R9-20-201(A)(10) (1996)... ... 14

Ariz. Admin. Code § R9-21-315(B) (1996) ........ 14

Ariz. Admin. Code § R9-22-518 (1996) .......... 14

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

PAGE

PERIODICALS AND PUBLICATIONS

Hugo Beardsmore & Roland Willemyns, Comment,

60 Int'l J. Soc. Lang. 117 (1986) ......-.----. 29

Bilingual Educ. Unit, Arizona Dep't of Educ.,

Bilingual Programs and English as a Second

Language Programs Annual Report 1992-1993

| errr yy tee rr ee 11

Antonio J. Califa, Declaring English the Official

Language: Prejudice Spoken Here, 24 Harv.

C.R.-C._L. L. Rev. 293 (1989) .....--+-+ essere 29

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce,

1990 Census of Population - Social and

Economic Characteristics (Arizona) (1993) ........ 2

Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Dep't of H.E.W.,

Access of Non- or Limited-English Speaking

Persons of Hispanic Origin to the N.Y.C.

Dep't of Social Services (1979). ..---- +s - essere 2

2 Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the

Constitutional Limitations (8th ed. 1927) .......-- 20

Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social

Communication (1966) 2... 6 6 eee 28

Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Dep't

of Justice, Jmmigration to the United States

in Fiscal Year 1995 (1996)... 0.6 0 eee eee 3

Vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

PAGE

Valerie A. Lexion, Language Minority Voti

Rights and the English Language ptr d

14 Hastings Const. L. Q. 657 (1987) ........... 27

Bill Piatt Only English? (1990)................. 2

Andre Solé, Official English: A Socratic Dialogue/

pr he peccapuce Analysis, 45 Fla. L. Rev. 803

Calvin Veltman, The Future of the Spanish Language

in the United States (1988) .................. 3

Dinah Volk, A Case Study of Parent Involvement in

the Homes of Three Puerto Rican Kindergartners,

= Issues Lang. Minority Students 89

1990 U.S. Census, Population Data,

Table ED 90-5, Language Use and

English Ability, Persons 18 Years and Over,

by State (Westlaw database CENDATA) ......... 28

Vill ;

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Conti

PAGE

English Language Constitutional Amendments: Elai

Hearings on H.J. Res. 13 Before the Subcomm. “ a gene _ to the Classroom,

on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Comm. | Oe ee eee OE ee DS ee: 28

on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988)

(statement of Rep. Norman Y. Mineta).......... 25

Op. Att'y Gen. Az., [89-009 (1989) ............. 7 |

Statement of the National Education Association on

English as a Common Language, Submitted to the

Subcomm. on Early Childhood, Youth and

Families of the Comm. on Economic and

Educational Opportunities, U.S. House of Rep.

Cte; 05 TN 6s 06 eo ke ove wees Fes ek Es 28

Letter from Rosalind R. Bruno,

Education and Social Stratification Branch,

Bureau of the Census, to Karen Hanson,

Nat'l Council of La Raza (Nov. 27, 1995) ......... |

Letter from Andrew Fois, Ass't Att'y Gen.,

U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Hon. Ted Stevens,

Chairman of the Senate Comm. on Governmental

Affairs, U.S. Senate (May 14, 1996) ............ 8

Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry

(Aug. 4, 1822), quoted in Thomas I. Emerson,

Legal Foundations of the Right to Know,

SPs We, Eines: PD ROOUEE Oo a Wen ececeeeses 20

Melita Garza, CHA Opens Section 8 Lists For

Latinos, Chi. Trib., Apr. 23,1996 ............. 3

STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE

This brief amici curiae is submitted on behalf of

numerous community-based organizations ("CBOs") that

provide assistance and support services to persons with limited

or no English-speaking ability.' The amici CBOs, in a time of

declining budgets and resources, attempt to provide a broad

spectrum of services including health care, business and

community development, educational programs, counseling,

and employment assistance.’ CBOs also inform their clients of

their rights and obligations under federal and state law. CBOs

thus not only assist persons with their immediate needs but also

serve as a conduit between federal, state, and local

governments and their non-English-speaking constituents by

providing information about government and its services.

The approximately 7 million people in the United States

with limited or no proficiency in English’ constitute one of

amici CBOs' principal constituencies. In Arizona alone, 21 %

of the population over the age of 5 speaks languages other than

English at home, including Spanish (14%), German (.6%),

Vietnamese (.1%), and several Native American languages

' Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 37.3, the parties’ letters of consent to

the filing of this brief have been filed with the Clerk.

> The amici CBOs, including those based in Arizona, and the

programs that they provide are described in the Appendix.

> See Letter from Rosalind R. Bruno, Education and Social

Stratification Branch, Bureau of the Census, to Karen Hanson, Nat'l

Council of La Raza 1 (Nov. 27, 1995) (on file with counsel for amnici).

Throughout this brief, the terms “limited English” and “non-English”

speakers are used interchangeably to refer to persons with limited and/or

no proficiency in English.

2

(3%).* Of these Arizonans, 122,423 (4% of the State's

population) have limited or no proficiency in English.’ These

limited English-speaking groups have more difficulty accessing

government assistance and information than English-proficient

groups.° Amici CBOs are concerned that coercive English-only

laws, such as Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution

("Article XXVIII"), will further isolate these constituents from

their government and the democratic process.

Many persons in the United States with limited English

proficiency are recent immigrants in search of economic

prosperity and participation in a democratic society. Because

they have an incentive to learn English to attain these goals,

* See Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, /990

Census of Population - Social and Economic Characteristics (Arizona),

Table 18 (1993). These percentages are derived from the responses to

question 15(a) of the 1990 Census Form, “Does this person speak a

language other than English at home?" See id. at App. B-23-24, E-14.

* See id., Table 18. This percentage is derived from responses to

question 15(c) of the 1990 Census Form, "How well does this person

speak English?” For purposes of this brief, persons are considered to be

limited or non-English proficient if they responded “not well” or “not at

all” (as opposed to "very well" or “well") to question 15(c). Jd. at App.

B-24-25, E-14.

® One study has shown that families with limited or non-English-

speaking heads of household received their welfare checks nearly a week

later than English-speaking clients; incurred greater incidental costs in

receiving the benefits, such as making extra trips to welfare offices,

paying for interpreters, and losing wages due to increased time at the

social service agency; and received no information concerning additional

sources of assistance such as free legal, educational, or day care

assistance. Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Dep't of H.E.W., Access of

Non- or Limited-English Speaking Persons of Hispanic Origin to the

NY.C. Dep't of Social Services (1979), discussed in Bill Piatt {Only

English? 105-06 (1990).

3

many communities of non-English speakers constitute groups

in transition to English proficiency. Non-English-speaking

immigrants generally learn English quickly after arriving in the

United States,’ and use English as their primary or sole

language within two or three generations.*. However, because

there is a constant influx of immigrants to the United States,’

and because discrimination against and inadequate education of

language minorities persist,’ there will always be a need to

provide information about government and government

services in languages in addition to English.

Amici have witnessed first-hand the difficulties faced by

persons with limited English proficiency in accessing

information about government and its services. Moreover,

amici are gravely concerned that if coercive English-only laws

’ Calvin Veltman, The Future of the Spanish Language in the

United States 44-45 (1988). For example, by the time they have been in

the country for 15 years, approximately 75% of all Hispanic immigrants

are speaking English on a regular basis. Indeed, more than 75% of

immigrants who have arrived in the United States before reaching 14

years of age have made English their everyday language. /d. at 40.

S Id. a 49.

* The number of legal immigrants to the United States over the

past three fiscal years has been 904,292 (1993), 804,416 (1994), and

720,461 (1995). Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Dep't of

Justice, /mmigration to the United States in Fiscal Year 1995, at 1

(1996).

© Insensitivity and indifference to language barriers also impede

the flow of information between the government and non-English-

speaking constituents. See Melita Garza, CHA Opens Section 8 Lists For

Latinos, Chi. Trib., Apr. 23, 1996, at Al (Chicago Housing Authority

admitted that it had purged from Section 8 housing waiting lists Latino

applicants who failed to respond to letters sent to them in English).

4

like Article XXVIII are upheld, CBOs will be overwhelmed by

non-English-speaking persons who would be cut off from

direct access to vital government information and services."’

Even assuming that CBOs could meet this demand, they would

be forced to redirect scarce resources to provide (1)

comprehensive translation services for communication between

non-English speakers and government employees, and (2)

multilingual services and information presently being provided

more effectively and efficiently by all levels of government.

The result would be not only to exclude non-English speakers

from communication with government, but also to undermine

the ability of CBOs to continue providing vital programs and

assistance to their constituents.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Article XXVIII unconstitutionally impairs the First

Amendment rights of both government employees and non-

English-speaking Arizonans by banning protected speech -- in

this case, the communication of information about government

and its services in any language other than English.’ Article

'! The absence of a coercive English-only law does not impose an

affirmative obligation on state or local governments to provide

information about rights and services in languages other than English.

Rather, it allows these governments or their employees to use other

languages to deliver efficiently and effectively information about

government services to non-English speakers.

2 Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution was passed as a

ballot initiative in 1988. See Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English,

69 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. granted, 64 U.S.L.W.

3635 (U.S. Mar. 25, 1996). As other amici compellingly argue, Article

XXVIII violates the First Amendment rights of Ms. Yniguez and other

public employees by prohibiting them from conveying government

(continued...)

5

XXVIII applies to all government officials and employees in

the performance of government business. It therefore prohibits

state officials and employees from speaking languages other

than English with non-English-speaking constituents, a form of

communication which the State has conceded improves

efficiency. Article XXVIII also requires English as the

language of public schools. Accordingly, it restricts the use of

bilingual education, which has been widely recognized as the

most effective method of teaching limited English-proficient

children. Because Article XX VIII's broad sweep imposes an

English-only requirement on state statutes, rules, programs and

policies, it precludes the dissemination in languages other than

English of information on various educational, public health

and welfare programs which are designed to benefit ail

Arizonans.

. Article XXVIII would shift to CBOs the burden of

serving as primary providers of information about government

to non-English-speaking Arizonans. CBOs already face limited

funding for the services they provide, and this shift would

likely result in a reduction in other forms of assistance for

their constituents. Moreover, because the State would cede

control of delivering its message to non-English speakers,

information about government services may not be presented

as effectively as if provided directly by the State itself.

ee "(_. continued)

ormation and services to the public in language other than

See Bciel of Amici Covias American Civ Liverion Union of al. andes

CBOs will not repeat these arguments here. Instead, amici CBOs focus

their legal argument on the impact of Article XXVIII on the First

Petitioners (hereinafter Pet. Br.| at 25-26.

6

Article XXVIII violates the First Amendment rights of

non-English speakers in Arizona by erecting a barrier to their

ability to receive information and ideas from their state and

local governments. Article XXVIII also suppresses the flow

of truthful information for the paternalistic purpose of

compelling Arizonans to learn English. It does so by "hiding"

information about government services and functions from

non-English-speaking Arizonans. By denying access to

information and impeding the free flow of information, Article

participate in democratic society. In effect, it silences them,

and silences government employees by preventing them from

serving as sources of vital information. Such enforced silence

is contrary to our Nation's commitment, embodied in the First

Amendment, to the ideal of a free exchange of ideas and flow

of information.

Article XXVIII's suppression of speech about

government and government services does not promote any of

the state interests asserted by Petitioners. Article XXVIII does

not promote governmental “legitimacy.” A legitimate

democratic government serves ail its constituents whether or

not they speak English. Article XXVIII also does not promote

national unity. To the contrary, it would divide society into

those able to participate in government and those incapable of

doing so. Nor does Article XXVIII foster a common

language. English is -- and will continue to be -- the

predominant language of the United States, which all attempt

to learn in order to take advantage of the opportunities

available in Arizona and the United States. For these reasons,

Article XXVIII is repugnant to the First Amendment and our

nation’s democratic traditions. This Court should affirm the

Ninth Circuit's decision invalidating Article XXVIII.

5

ARGUMENT

I. ARTICLE XXVIII FORECLOSES DIRECT

ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY AND ABOUT

GOVERNMENT FOR ARIZONANS WITH

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY.

"Whatever differences may exist about interpretations

of the First Amendment, there is practically universal

agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment ‘vas to

protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."

Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829,

838 (1978) (quoting Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218

(1966)). Article XXVIII inhibits "the free discussion of

governmental affairs" because it purposefully deprives non-

English-speaking Arizonans of access to information about the

government when multilingual access is necessary "to ensure

fair and effective delivery of governmental services to non-

English speakers."'* Moreover, Article XXVIII would make

the State's policy on the use of English inconsistent with

federal law and policy, which do not require that immigrants

to the United States, including those residing in Arizona, know

"Free discussion” necessarily implies protection not only for the

speaker and provider of information but also for the audience and

consumer of information. See, e.g, Virginia State Bd of Pharmacy v.

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976) (First

Amendment protection extends to “the communication, its source and to

its recipients both”).

‘* Op. Att'y Gen. Az., 189-009, at 7 (1989), reprinted in Joim

Appendix {hereinafter J.A.] at 71. The Arizona Attorney General's

opinion construed Article XXVIII to be applicable only to “official acts

of government.” (J.A. 76.) This opinion, however, is not binding on

Arizona courts. See Yniguez, 69 F.3d at 928-29.

English as a condition to entry."° See 8 USC. §§ 1101 ef seq.

(1994).

The Arizona government at both state and local levels

has recognized the importance of ensuring that non-English

speakers are able to receive important information in a

comprehensible form about, inter alia, education, legislative

matters, consumer protection, health care, and public benefits

by providing information in languages other than English."

This information is essential to both English and non-English

speakers, and the broad dissemination of this information to all

segments of society benefits the entire state. By prohibiting

public employees and all state agencies from communicating

information in languages other than English, Article XXVIII

‘Ss The Clinton Administration has opposed recent attempts to adopt

an English-only law at the federal level. See Letter from Andrew Fois,

Ass't Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman

of the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 2 (May 14,

1996) (on file with counsel for amici) ("The passage of [The Language

of Government Act] would decrease administrative efficiency and exclude

Americans who are not fully proficient in English from education,

employment, voting and equal participation in our society.").

‘© At the federal level, Congress has implemented laws to protect

the rights of non-English speakers to receive government information,

and has taken affirmative steps to enable the non-English-speaking public

to participate in meaningful communication with the government. See,

eg, 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-la(b) (1994) (requiring bilingual voting

materials for certain non-English speaking populations); 20 U.S.C.

§§ 7401-7602 (1994) (providing funds to help states educate language

minority residents); 42 U.S.C. §§ 254b(f)(3)J), 254c(e(3)J) (1994)

(requiring identification of bilingual staff members in federally-funded

migrant and community health centers where there are substantial number

of limited English-speaking clients).

a -~ -

er ne eee oe es

a

9

denies access to this vast body of information by the non-

English-speaking public.'’

A. Article XXVIII impairs Communication with

State Employees and Elected Officials in

Languages Other Than English.

The examples of Ms. Yniguez and Senator Gutierrez

illustrate the unreasonable barriers that Article XXVIII would

place before limited English-speaking Arizonans seeking to

receive government information or services. On behalf of the

Risk Management Division, Maria-Kelley Yniguez spoke in

Spanish to Spanish-speaking people who were asserting

medical malpractice claims against the State of Arizona. (J.A.

45-46.) In the course of her official duties, Ms. Yniguez also

prepared legal documents in Spanish so that Spanish-speaking

citizens who were unable to read English could understand the

legal import of the documents they were asked to sign. (J.A.

48.) Ms. Yniguez spoke Spanish on the job with the consent

of her supervisors; in fact, at the request of her supervisors,

Ms. Yniguez used her bilingual skills to help investigate other

claims made against the State of Arizona. (J.A. 46.)

"Article XX VIII's exceptions are limited and vague: non-English

languages may be used to protect the rights of criminal defendants and

victims, to protect public health or safety, to teach a foreign language,

and to comply with federal laws. Art. XXVIII, § 3(2). Article XXVIII

provides no guidance on how these exceptions are to be applied, yet,

permits suits by private citizens to enforce the “official” use of English.

Id., § 4. In those instances where a state employee must interpret Article

XXVIII's boundaries, the threat of employee sanctions and Article

XXVIII's private right of enforcement would deter state employees from

using any language other than English. See, e.g, J.A. 86 (Ms. Yniguez

ceased using Spanish on the job out of fear that "it would be contrary to

the amendment” and “someone could bring a lawsuit against me”).

10

Article XXVIII applies to “all government officials and

employees during the performance of government business."

Art. XXVIII, § 1(3)(a)iv). It would thus prohibit bilingual

employees like Ms. Yniguez from speaking Spanish on the job,

and would thereby foreclose the most efficient form of

government communication with non-English speakers. As

Ms. Yniguez herself noted: "If I am not permitted to

communicate in the Spanish language with persons who speak

the Spanish language but not the English language, I will be

denied the opportunity to obtain and disseminate information

which is of public importance and interest." (J.A. 46.) The

absurdity of Article XXVIII, and the waste of resources it

would engender is obvious: a private citizen would be needed

to translate a conversation between a Spanish speaker and Ms.

Yniguez about a medical malpractice claim, even though Ms.

Yniguez could speak directly to the Spanish speaker in

Spanish.

Similarly, state legislators such as Senator Jaime

Gutierrez have relied on their foreign language skills to ensure

that their non-English-speaking constituents are not denied

access to the government. (J.A. 78-79.) Senator Gutierrez

has used Spanish with his non-English-speaking constituents to

provide "educational material regarding State government,"

and to permit “entry or access into State government for

resolution of whatever types of problems one may have." (/d.

at 79.) However, Article XXVIII applies to the "Legislative,

Executive and Judicial branches of government," Art. XXVIII,

§ 1(3)(a), and mandates that the English language is the

language of “all government functions and actions," id,

§ 1(2). Article XXVIII would thus ban legislators from

speaking with or writing to their constituents in any language

other than English. See Yniguez, 69 F.3d at 950 (Brunetti, J.,

concurring). Even though State representatives may share

ll

fluency in a non-English language with their constituents, they

would not be allowed to communicate in that language to

describe legislative developments or proposed legislation, or to

seek input on what actions they should take on their

constituents’ behalf -- communication at the core of the First

Amendment and our democratic form of government.

B. Article XXVIII Restricts the Educational

Opportunities of Non-English-Speaking

Arizonans.

Article XXVIII restricts educational opportunities by

preventing Arizonan children with limited or no proficiency in

English from receiving bilingual education -- widely regarded

as the most effective form of language instruction. Many

educators agree that incorporating the student's native language

in teaching is the best method to achieve fluency in both

English and the student's native language in the shortest

amount of time, and still ensure that the student learns the

substantive content of the subject being taught.'* Article

XXVIII ignores these findings -- with no justification except to

coerce the use of English -- and requires English to be the

language of the public schools. Art XXVIIJ, § 1(2). Asa

result, over 90,000 K-12 students in Arizona'® would be denied

'* See, e.g., Wayne P. Thomas & Virginia P. Collier, Research

Summary of Study in Progress: Language Minority Student Achievement

and Program Effectiveness (1995). This study examined approximately

42,000 student records, and found that language minority students

reached English fluency in five to ten years if taught in English only.

The use of bilingual instruction, however, reduced this time to four to

seven years.

‘* Bilingual Educ. Unit, Arizona Dep't of Educ., Bilingual

Programs and English as a Second Language Programs Annual Report

1992-1993, at 13 (1994).

12

the most effective form of educational instruction.” Arizona

school districts that have successfully educated language

minority youths in the past through the use of native language

instruction would be forced to abandon bilingual education.

Therefore, Article XXVIII would effectively ban the option of

bilingual education and require less effective means for

educating non-English-speaking students.

Article XXVIII undermines the educational process in

other ways as well. Non-English-speaking parents already face

great difficulty participating in their children's education. See

20 U.S.C. § 7402(a)(S5)(C) (1994). Article XXVIII would

increase that difficulty because it appears to preclude public

school teachers from communicating directly with non-English-

speaking parents in languages other than English. Although

educators have found that a student's academic performance is

strongly affected by the parents’ participation in the child's

0 Article XXVIII purports to create an exception to English-only

instruction "to assist students who are not proficient in the English

language, to the extent necessary to comply with federal law, by giving

educational instruction in a language other than English to provide as

rapid as possible a transition to English." Art. XXVIII, § 3(2)(a). This

exception, however, is meaningless because federal law does not

specifically mandate native language instruction; it only requires that (1)

school districts provide sound educational programming to limited English

proficient students through which they can acquire English language

skills, and (2) the educational program produces results indicating that the

language barriers are being overcome. See Castaneda v. Pickard, 648

F.2d 989, 1009-11 (Sth Cir. 1981).

13

schooling,”' Article XXVIII removes this critical support from

the cluld's education.

Article XXVIII would also harshly impact non-English-

speaking families with children in special education programs.

The State of Arizona currently requires each local educational

agency ("LEA") and State-supported institution ("SSI") to

provide information regarding the rights of handicapped

children in a language comprehensible to the parents,

regardless of their ethnic, linguistic, or cultural background.

Ariz. Admin. Code § R7-2-401(B)(1) (1995). All

communications from the LEA or SSI to the language minority

parents about any special education matter must be in the

primary language of the home. /d. § R7-2-401(C)(7).

Furthermore, the State must provide an interpreter during an

individualized education program planning conference if either

the parent or child has limited English proficiency. Jd. § R7-

2-401(F)(3). These services are designed to increase the

parents’ level of participation in the educational process to

ensure that children receive an effective education. These

services are not likely to be available because Article XXVIII

precludes state employees from using any language other than

English.

*! See Dinah Volk, A Case Study of Parent Involvement in the

Homes of Three Puerto Rican Kindergartners, 14 J. Educ. Issues Lang.

Minority Students 89 (1994) ("parent involvement is frequently described

in the literature as critical to the development of academic achievement,

cognitive development, self-esteem, motivation, and self-discipline").

14

Cc. Article XX VIII Suppresses the Dissemination

of Information Intended to Promote Public

Awareness and Welfare.

Recognizing that providing information only in English

does not adequately inform all Arizonans, the State of Arizona

has adopted laws and regulations to ensure that the non-

English-speaking public understands basic information about

their rights and responsibilities. These laws are likely to be

declared unconstitutional under Article XXVIII. See Art.

XXVIII, § 1(3)(a)(iii) (English-only requirement applies to “all

statutes, ordinances, rules, orders, programs and policies").

For example, Arizona currently requires all businesses

that process consumer loans to post conspicuous signs in

English and Spanish stating that legally-required disclosures

must be provided in Spanish at the borrower's request. Ariz.

Rev. Stat. § 6-651(A)(2) (1995). It would be inconsistent with

Article XXVIII for the State to mandate that private

organizations publish consumer protection notices in any

language other than English. Language minorities would thus

be placed at a substantial disadvantage in situations where the

State itself has recognized a critical need for consumers to be

aware of their rights in order to make informed decisions.

In the area of health care, Arizona requires that patients

with serious medical or mental conditions must be informed of

their rights in a language which they understand.” Without

2 See Ariz. Admin. Code § R9-20-201(A)(10) (1996) (all clients

of behavioral health service agencies have a right to be informed of all

rights in the client's primary language); id. § R9-21-315(B) (client or

applicant for mental health services must be informed by written notice

in English and Spanish of rights to appeal); see also id. § R9-22-518

(continued...)

ee a

15

this support, the most vulnerable members of society are left

to fend for themselves since they would not be aware of the

rights and protections that they are entitled to receive by law.”

Non-English-speaking Arizonans would even be

foreclosed under Article XXVIII from obtaining the knowledge

necessary to exercise basic rights and benefits enjoyed by

English-speaking Arizonans. Currently, government agencie:

print information in Spanish on a variety of topics, including

energy conservation, the rights of utility customers, gang

membership deterrences, accessing emergency medical

services, obtaining health care for children of low-income

families, and maintenance of privately-owned gas pipelines

served by public utilities.“ Providing such information in

languages other than English is likely to be foreclosed by

Article XXVIII because it requires the use of English by “all

political subdivisions, departments, agencies, organizations,

and instrumentalities" of the State. Art. XXVIII, § 1(3)(a)(ii).

The availability of information on public health and

consumer education programs in languages other than English

benefits a// Arizonans by increasing the number of informed

2(_. continued)

(companies that contract with the State of Arizona to provide health

services must provide written descriptions of their services and fees in

English and in a second language when 200 members or 5%, whichever

is greater, of the population enrolled in the health plan are non-English-

speaking).

* Article XXVIII includes an exception "to protect public health

or safety." Art. XXVIII, § 3(2)(d). However, neither the nature nor the

beneficiaries of this “protection” have been delineated.

- ais eeneen of Ste tenets tae Came talgns as he Gian

amici

16

Arizonans and, thereby, the potential for participation in the

programs. However, by requiring the use of only English,

Article XXVIII cleaves society into those able to obtain and

understand such government information and non-English

speakers who must turn elsewhere -- most likely to CBOs -- to

receive the same information, to the detriment of society as a

whole.

Il. ARTICLE XXVIII IMPEDES COMMUNICATION

WITH THE GOVERNMENT BY NON-ENGLISH-

SPEAKING ARIZONANS BY IMPOSING

ENORMOUS BURDENS ON CBOS.

If Article XXVIII were enforced, it would shift to

private parties, like CBOs, the burden of providing information

about government to over 100,000 limited English-speaking

Arizonans, thereby creating additional barriers to receipt of

such information.”

A. Funding for CBOs Is Limited.

In a time of declining resources and increasing demand

for assistance, Article XXVIII would force CBOs to assume

the additional burden of serving as primary providers of

information about government to non-English-speaking

5 In addition to requiring the use of only English by the State, its

officials, agencies and employees, Article XXVIII provides all persons

residing or doing business within the State with the right to sue to enforce

its English-only restrictions. Art. XXVIII, § 4. This private right of

enforcement would have a direct chilling effect not only on state

employees like Ms. Yniguez (see J.A. 52), but also on all persons or

entities within the State at any point of communication with the State or

its representatives.

we eH |

— ey a ee

th, Rie eR a a a a a I

17

Arizonans.”° CBOs already face difficulty in meeting the

present demand for these services. Article XXVIII would

create the need for CBOs to expand translation services in

order for non-English speakers to obtain information about

government and government services. To the extent that

CBOs are called on to serve as interpreters, they would pay a

substantial price in funds and employees diverted from other

much-needed programs such as: immunization clinics; child

care; educational services; assistance to domestic violence

victims; legalization and naturalization services; employment

counseling; developing, renovating and providing housing for

low-income families; mental health services and counseling;

and substance abuse prevention and treatment. Ultimately, the

cost of Article XXVIII would be borne by the constituents of

CBOs in the form of reduced assistance. Thus, by shifting the

burden to convey government information to CBOs, Article

XXVIII increases the likelihood that the government's message

will not be received.

B. Forcing Private Parties to Disseminate

Information About Government Hinders

Receipt of Accurate Speech. |

Foreclosing direct access to communication with the

Arizona government does not erase the acute need of non-

English-speaking residents for government information and

services. Therefore, to communicate with or to receive

information about the government of Arizona, many more non-

*® The State of Arizona could not condition funding for CBOs on

the use of only English in the provision of services without violating the

CBOs' First Amendment rights. See Board of County Comm'rs,

Wabaunsee County, Kansas v. Umbehr, 64 U.S.L.W. 4682 (U.S. June

28, 1996).

18

English-speaking Arizonans will turn to CBOs. Article

XXVIII, in effect, forces the State to cede control of its

message and to rely on third parties with less familiarity and

understanding about government programs to communicate

directly with non-English speakers.

Even assuming that translation-on-demand would be

available to non-English speakers (and without a corresponding

reduction in other forms of assistance), there is no assurance

that the government's message will be accurately translated or

fully communicated by CBOs. While misinterpretation would

certainly not be intentional, it is likely to occur, particularly

when the information being translated is technical in nature or

concerns complex issues. For instance, Ms. Yniguez, based

on her experience in investigating medical malpractice claims

involving the State, is in a better position than employees of

CBOs to communicate information concerning the State's

procedures for resolving such claims.

Nor will a literal translation of the government's

message always be sufficient. In many cases, it would be

important to convey the proper context and background along

with the particular facts being communicated. For example,

the description of a particular aspect of bringing a medical

malpractice claim against the State may take on a fuller or

even different meaning if accompanied by an explanation of

the tort law of Arizona or administrative proceedings in

general. The government employee representing a particular

agency or program is in the best position to convey the

message and its context -- not the third-party interpreter.

Moreover, Article XXVIII reduces government's and

society's stake in ensuring that ali persons participate directly

in democratic society, and compels CBOs to assume the role

of intermediaries between the non-English-speaking public and

19

government.”’ In contrast to the government as provider of

this information, the numerous CBOs providing information to

non-English-speaking Arizonans are likely to interpret the

information differently and place it in different contexts.

Ultimately, if CBOs become the primary source of information

about government and the services it provides, the information

will not be presented in a unified voice or as accurately as it

would were the government the sole, multilingual speaker.

Il. ARTICLE XXVIII VIOLATES THE FIRST

AMENDMENT AND ITS PROTECTION OF THE

RIGHT TO KNOW AND THE FREE FLOW OF

TRUTHFUL INFORMATION.

A. Article XXVIII Abridges the Right of Non-

English-Speaking Arizonans to Receive

Information From and About Government.

Nearly two centuries ago, James Madison recognized

the importance of the right to receive information and ideas,

or, simply put, the “right to know":

A popular government, without popular information or

the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce

or tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever

govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their

own governors, must arm themselves with the power

knowledge gives.

*” Because Article XXVIII would force the state to abdicate its

responsibility to provide information to non-English speakers, CBOs may

be hesitant to refer non-English speakers to the government for

assistance. If no translation service were available, it would be futile to

send non-English-speaking clients to a government office.

20

Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822),

quoted in Thomas I. Emerson, Legal Foundations of the Right

to Know, 1976 Wash. U. L.Q. 1 (1976). This Court has since

recognized in a number of different contexts the fundamental

importance of the "right to know." It first clearly identified

the right in Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301 (1965),

when it upheld the right of citizens to receive "foreign

communist propaganda” from abroad without having to notify

the government.“ Echoing James Madison's sentiments,

Justice Brennan declared that "[t]he dissemination of ideas can

accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free

to receive and consider them. It would be a barren

marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." /d

at 308 (Brennan, J., concurring).

That same year, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.

479 (1965), this Court reemphasized the importance of the

right to know when it struck down a Connecticut statute

forbidding the use of contraceptives:

** The Court, however, has traced the genesis of the right to know

to the early eighteenth century. In Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297

U.S. 233, 240 (1936), the Court described in detail the history leading

to the adoption of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In

1712, the British Parliament imposed a “knowledge tax” on all

newspapers and advertisements to suppress comments and criticisms

objectionable to the Crown. Many citizens of England and the American

Colonies protested this tax because it interfered with their ability “to

establish and preserve [their] right to . . . full information in respect to

the doings and misdoings of their government.” /d at 247. From this

experience, the Framers drafted the Free Speech Clause to prevent “'any

action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free

and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to

prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens. ’*

Id at 249-50 (quoting 2 Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the

Constitutional Limitations 886 (8th ed. 1927)).

21

In other words, the State may not, consistently with the

spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of

available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech

and press includes not only the right to utter or to

print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive,

the right to read and freedom of inquiry, freedom of

thought, and freedora to teach.

Id at 482 (citations omitted). Only four years later, this Court

stated that "[i}t is now well established that the Constitution

protects the rights to receive information and ideas." Stanley

v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969). "This right to receive

information and ideas is fundamental to our free society." /d.

At the heart of the right to know recognized in Lamont,

Griswold, and Stanley is the ability to receive information and

ideas about the government and its business.” This right

protects “the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

Landmark Communications, 435 U.S. at 838. By purposefully

depriving language minorities of access to information about

governmental affairs and services, Article XXVIII

right to know and inhibits participation in the "free discussion"

of issues and ideas at the core of the First Amendment.”

* See, eg, Landmark Communications, 435 U.S. at 837-842

(publication of truthful information in official commission records): see

also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976) (First Amendment affords

broadest protection to information regarding political affairs to assure

“unfettered interchange of ideas” for bringing about political and social

changes); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

(public dissemination of information regarding foreign policy).

* — Petitioners’ claim that the Tenth Amendment insulates Article

XXVIII from First Amendment scrutiny is fundamentally flawed. See

(continued...)

22

B. Article XXVIII Suppresses the Free Flow of

Truthful, Nonmisleading Information.

The corollary to the right to receive information and

ideas is the principle that the government does not have broad

discretion to impose laws that purposefully suppress truthful,

nonmisleading information merely for paternalistic purposes.

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495, 1508

(1996); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 403 (1923). "The

First Amendment directs us to be especially skeptical of

regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the

government perceives to be their own good." 44 Liquormart,

116 S. Ct. at 1508. Article XXVIII does just that by "hiding"

truthful information from non-English-speaking citizens in an

effort to force them to speak English “for their own good."

This Court has most often articulated this concern with

hiding truthful information in the context of restrictions on the

right of citizens to receive information on commercial

transactions. See 44 Liquormart, 116 S. Ct. at 1508; /banez

v. Florida Dep't of Business and Professional Regulation, \14

S. Ct. 2084, 2088-89 (1994); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,

*(.. continued)

Pet. Br. at 30-32. Article XXVIII is not an act of the federal government

which encroaches upon police powers reserved to the states. See United

States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995). Moreover, through Article

XXVIII, the State of Arizona would impermissibly impair individual

rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to Arizona residents.

If there is any principle which stands clear, it is surely that neither

by the Bill of Rights in the name of "states’ rights.” See, e.g, Huuer v.

Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 233 (1985) (Tenth Amendment cannot save

legislation prohibited by Fourteenth Amendment); Gulf, Colo. & SF. Ry.

v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98 (1895) (powers reserved to the states must be

exercised in subordination to the federal Constitution).

23

433 U.S. 350 (1977); Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy, 425

U.S. at 773. In striking down Rhode Island's statutory

prohibition against advertisements that provided the public with

accurate information about retail prices of alcoholic beverages,

this Court stated that "bans that target truthful, nonmisleading

commercial messages . . . not only hinder consumer choice,

but also impede debate over central issues of public policy."

44 Liquormart, 116 S. Ct. at 1508. Likewise, in Virginia

State Bd. of Pharmacy, the Court concluded that the free flow

of commercial information was indispensable to ensuring that

individuals make informed and intelligent economic decisions.

Just as advertising plays a Central role in informing

debate in our free market economy, the free flow of

information from the State regarding government services is

indispensable to maintaining our democratic form of

government:

[The First Amendment] embodies our Nation's

commitment to popular self-determination and our

abiding faith that the surest course for developing

sound national policy lies in a free exchange of views

on public issues. And public debate must not only be

unfettered; it must also be informed. For that reason

this Court has repeatedly stated that First Amendment

concerns encompass the receipt of information and

ideas as well as the right of free expression.

Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 862-63 (1974)

(Powell, J., dissenting) (footnote and citations omitted).

Article XXVIII is an unconstitutional restraint on the

marketplace of ideas and discourse. It impedes the free flow

of information necessary to have an informed populace by

silencing non-English speakers and those government

24

employees that could communicate with them. Such enforced

silence is contrary to our Nation's commitment, embodied in

the First Amendment, to the ideal that the free exchange of

ideas is the best method of resolving controversial issues.

As Justice Brandeis exclaimed in his objection to a

prohibition of political speech, "the remedy to be applied is

more speech, not enforced silence." Whitney v. California,

274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

Accordingly, the State cannot purposefully exclude a segment

of the population from the free debate on government and what

it does, nor suppress direct communication between the

government and the governed. "The protection of the

Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages

as well as to those born with English on the tongue." Meyer,

262 U.S. at 401.

IV. ARTICLE XXVIII DOES NOT PROMOTE ANY

OF THE ASSERTED STATE INTERESTS.

A. Article XXVIII Does Not Promote Efficiency,

Effectiveness or Accuracy.

Petitioners claim that Article XXVIII promotes

Arizona's interests in “efficiency, effectiveness, accuracy,

legitimacy and encouragement of unity." Pet. Br. at 37. But

the State has already conceded that its operations are more

efficient if government employees are permitted to

communicate with a non-English speaker in the constituent's

native language. (J.A. 53-54.) As evidenced by the State's

own action in providing information in languages other than

English, it is also more effective and more accurate not to

require that all communication by the State be made only in

English. Accordingly, Petitioners cannot legitimately claim

that Article XXVIII promotes efficiency, effectiveness and

25

accuracy, interests which the State, by admission and by deed,

has conceded Article XXVIII obstructs.

B. Article XXVIII Does Not Promote

Governmental "Legitimacy."

Petitioners assert that Article XXVIII promotes some

allegedly “valid State interest in [Arizona's] own legitimacy."

Pet. Br. at 36. In fact, this alleged State interest is merely a

euphemism for Petitioners’ blatantly discriminatory attempt to

exclude linguistic minorities from the democratic process,

which is not a "legitimate" State interest at all. See Romer v.

Evans, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996).

In the one case that Petitioners cite for this assertion,

United States v. International Union United Auto. Workers,

352 U.S. 567 (1957), this Court upheld a statute intended to

protect the role of individuals and minorities in the electoral

process by prohibiting contributions by corporations and

umions to electoral campaigns for federal office. The teaching

of that case, if at all relevant in this context, is that

government promotes its "legitimacy" by not adopting the

majority view when necessary to ensure that the voice of the

minority is heard. Article XXVIII does the precise opposite

by ensuring that only the voice of the majority is heard, to the

detriment of non-English speakers. As Congressman Mineta

noted regarding a proposed English Language Amendment to

the United States Constitution, English-only laws "set up a

class of ‘outsiders'--unable to communicate with their

government, and their government unable to communicate with

them -- all based on language skills. "*'

3 s :

English Language Constitutional Amendments: Hearir 1s on HJ.

Res. 13 Before the Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the

(continued...)

26

Petitioners illustrate the alleged state interest in

governmental legitimacy with the story of an English speaker

unable to find someone at a government office who spoke her

language. Pet. Br. at 36. Were the languages simply

reversed, this story represents exactly the circumstances in

which non-English speakers in Arizona would find themselves

in an English-only government.” Moreover, using Petitioners’

reasoning, this scenario illustrates the perception of

governmental "illegitimacy" that linguistic minorities in

Arizona would hold if the State mandates that its employees

speak only English.

Ultimately, legitimacy of government is not promoted

by adopting a constitutional amendment which "officially"

denies the existence of language minorities, and "officially"

imposes a unified, English-only facade for Arizonans. The

State of Arizona must serve all Arizonans, not just those who

need reassurance that the State speaks like the English-speaking

majority. Article XXVIII permits the government to abdicate

its responsibility to ensure that ail its constituents participate

in democratic government and allows it to rely on the altruism

*(.. continued)

Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1988) (statement of

Rep. Norman Y. Mineta).

2 The burden of coercive language choice on the rights of non-

English-speaking Arizonans is readily apparent by taking Petitioners’

choice law would surely be struck down as impermissibly burdening the

right of non-Navajo-speaking Arizonans to participate in the “free

discussion of governmental affairs.”

27

of private parties such as CBOs to communicate with non-

English-speaking Arizonans. While CBOs serve language

minorities im many ways, they cannot substitute for

government itself.

c. Article XXVIII Does Not Promote National

Unity or Use of a Common Language.

While national unity has been deemed a legitimate

government interest in certain contexts,” Article XXVIII, by

coercion, does not promote that interest. Language alone

cannot promote national unity. Without other, more important

common bonds, such as the belief in a democratic form of

government and equality of opportunity, a common language

would be of little use.” For example, sociolinguist Karl

Deutsch has found that language is not a necessary or

sufficient condition for a sense of nationalism. Deutsch points

out:

3 See West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624,

640 (1943) (“National unity as an end which officials may foster by

persuasion and example is not in question.") (emphasis added).

” See id ("The problem is whether under our Constitution

compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its

achievement. "). Federal law does not seek unity through use of only

English. For example, federal law provides that "[tJhe right of Native

Americans to express themselves through the use of Native American

languages shall not be restricted in any public proceeding, including

publicly supported education programs." 25 U.S.C. § 2904 (1994).

” See Valerie A. Lexion, Note, Language Minority Voti Rights

and the English Language Amendment, 14 Hastings rosin es 657,

677 (1987). Indeed, Petitioners themselves acknowledge that “unity

comes from a common language and a core public culture of certain

shared values, beliefs, and customs which make us distinctly

‘Americans.'" Pet. Br. at 36-37.

28

The Swiss may speak four different languages and still

act as one people, for each of them has enough learned

habits, preferences, symbols, memories, patterns of

landholding and social stratification, events in history,

and personal associations, all of which together permit

him to communicate more effectively with other Swiss

than with the speakers of his own language who belong

to other peoples.”

Furthermore, Article XXVIII is not needed to promote

use of a common language. America already has a common

language--English. The 1990 United States census statistics

show that only 3.1% of the census respondents do not speak

English well or very well.”’ Given the widespread acceptance

and use of English,” it is an essential role of government to

%* Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication 97

(1966), quoted in Andre Solé, Official English: A Socratic Dialogue/Law

and Economics Analysis, 45 Fla. L. Rev. 803, 825 (1993).

3” 86.2% of adult respondents to the 1990 census survey speak only

English. 77.4% of the remaining 13.8% individuals who speak a non-

English language at home indicated that they spoke English well or very

well. 1990 U.S. Census, Population Data, Table ED 90-5, Language

Use and English Ability, Persons 18 Years and Over, by State (available

in Westlaw database CENDATA).

8 See Statement of the National Education Association on English

as a Common Language, Submitted to the Subcomm. on Early

Childhood, Youth and Families of the Comm. on Economic and

Educational Opportunities, U.S. House of Rep. 2 (Nov. 1, 1995)

("People who live in the United States understand and accept the

economic importance of learning English and don't need a law to force

them to learn it.”). Even now, the educational system cannot keep up

with the demand for English as a Second Language classes. See Elaine

Woo, Jmmigrants—A Rush to the Classroom, L.A. Times, Sept. 24,

(continued. . .)

29

recognize the existence of linguistic minorities and strive to

ensure their participation in and access to government.

Ultimately, attempts to compel uni su Si

language result in divisiveness.°? Over ne py ais

Court perceptively stated: "Probably no deeper division of our

people could proceed from any provocation than from finding

it necessary to choose what . . . Shall compel [Americans] to

unite inembracing." Barnette, 319 U.S. at 641. The Court

recognized the ultimate futility of such attempts to compel

unity “from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a

disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to

religious and dynastic unity, [and] the Siberian exiles as a

means to Russian unity." /d Here, as in Barnette, "[a}s

governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife

becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be." /d

**(.. continued)

1986, at 1 (over 40,000 persons in Los les ——

for English classes). ne eee

* See, eg, Antonio J. Califa, Declaring ish the Official

Language: Prejudice Spoken Here, 24 Harv. se L. Rev. 293,

295 (1989) (“English-Only laws are divisive and succeed only in

stigmatizing Hispanics."); see also Hugo Beardsmore & Roland

Willemyns, Comment, 60 Int'l J. Soc. Lang. 117, 120-21 (1986) -

(tensions in bilingual nations such as Belgium due not to bilingualism per

se, but rather to historical factors and lack of equality afforded to

subordinate language group).

V. CONCLUSION

30

For the reasons set forth above, this Court should

affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Dated: July 26, 1996

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH N. ONEK

Counsel of Record

WILLIAM D. WALLACE

JAVIER M. GUZMAN

ROBERT D. WING

SUNIL H. MANSUKHANI

CROWELL & MORING

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004-2595

(202) 624-2500

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

inform clients of their rights and obligations under the laws of

the United States and the District of Columbia. Ayuda's staff

of lawyers and paralegals, assisted by volunteers, offer their

expertise in the areas of immigration, domestic relations, and

domestic violence.

Alivio Medical Center (Chicago, IL)

Alivio Medical Center is a bilingual, bicultural

organization committed to providing access to quality, cost-

effective health care primarily to the Hispanic community, the

2a

uninsured “and the underinsured, without excluding other

cultures and races. This mission is expressed through the

provision of services, advocacy, education, research, and

evaluation.

American G.I. Forum of the United States (AGIF)

(Austin, TX)

AGIF was founded in 1948. Local chapters function

under a regional or state structure. The GI Forum pursues the

interests of veterans and Hispanics in the areas of education,

youth leadership and motivation, employment, civil rights,

legislation, and communications.

Amigos del Valle, Inc. (Mission, TX)

Founded in 1974, Amigos del Valle, Inc. aims to

maintain the elderly population of South Texas mentally,

physically, and socially, so as to enhance an independent

lifestyle. It provides comprehensive services to the elderly in

the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, including housing,

meals, recreation, transportation, and emergency services. Its

constituency is the 60 year-old and older population of

Hidalgo, Willacy, and Cameron Counties, of which more than

85% are Hispanic, and the majority are from farmworker

families. Amigos serves 3,500 elderly daily at 34 centers, and

owns and manages 300 units of housing for the elderly.

Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation

(AHCC) (Phoenix, AZ)

Founded in 1991, the mission of AHCC is to run

programs which focus on community, economic, and business

development through advocacy, action-based research, a

business loan pool, and entrepreneurial skills training. AHCC

currently runs Revive Arizona!, a rural economic development

3a

program funded by the U.S. WEST Foundation. AHCC also

has a contract with the U.S. Department of Transportation to

create a database of small and disadvantaged businesses in a

specific region. This database will be used to provide

information on _ transportation-related procurement

opportunities.

Asian American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts, Inc.

(AALAM) (Boston, MA)

AALAM is a nonprofit organization comprised of

nearly 100 Asian Pacific American attorneys in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. AALAM seeks to promote

and enhance the role of Asian Pacific American attorneys in

the profession, as well as to identify, address, and monitor

legal issues of concern to the Asian American community.

AALAM's members practice in a variety of settings, including

major law firms, legal services organizations, government,

corporations, and nonprofit organizations. AALAM is the

Massachusetts affiliate of the National Asian Pacific American

Bar Association, a membership organization of nearly 5,000

Asian Pacific American attorneys throughout the country.

Asian Law Alliance (ALA) (San Jose, CA)

ALA was established 19 years ago by Santa Clara law

students to provide legal assistance, education, advocacy, and

organizing support to the Asian Pacific Islander community in

Santa Clara County. As the only legal services organization

serving this Asian Pacific Islander population of almost

300,000, ALA is dedicated to ensuring top-quality multilingual

and multicultural legal assistance to promote dignity, self-

reliance, and a better quality of life for the people it assists.

4a

Asociacién Pro Servicios Sociales, Inc. (Laredo, TX)

Asociacién Pro Servicios Sociales, Inc. is a

community-based organization which provides advocacy,

community and economic development, immigration and

legalization services, and information and referrals. It

provides local projects with technical assistance and financial

support. Asociacién also operates a food bank for the low-

income population of Laredo County, Webb County, and the

surrounding area.

CASA of Maryland (Takoma Park, MD)

CASA of Maryland is a nonprofit organization founded

in 1985 that provides direct assistance, education, advocacy,

and empowerment services to the Latin American community

in the suburban Maryland/Washington, D.C. area. Its

programs and services include: human services information

and counseling; translations and applications assistance;

immigration counseling and assistance; adult literacy

instruction; leadership development activities; community

advocacy; and an employment and training center which

provides job skills training, temporary and permanent job

placement, driver education classes, pre-employment life skills

counseling, and legal rights instruction for workers and

immigrants.

Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy (CHisPA)

(Providence, RI)

Founded in 1986, CHisPA is a nonprofit organization

dedicated to improving the social, economic, political, and

educational status of Rhode Island's Latino community.

CHisPA provides support and advocacy to groups and

individuals working for Hispanics in the state. CHisPA's

projects include a Community Leadership Development

Sa

Initiative, Hispanic Health Coalition, an urban Promotoras de

Salud Model program, Project CASA, a Latino

homeownership program, and management of the Juanita

Sanchez Multiservice Center, where five nonprofit

organizations provide services to the community. CHisPA also

provides technical assistance to emerging grassroots groups,

conducts research and policy analysis, and advocates on behalf

of Rhode Island Latinos.

Center for Training and Careers, Inc. (CTC) (San Jose,

CA)

Founded in 1944, CTC provides vocational training to

unemployed and economically disadvantaged residents of Santa

Clara County, including direct services in employment and

training. Skills training programs include: Core

Competencies, Adult Basic Education, Automated Office

Technology, Computer Operation/Data Entry, Desktop

Publishing, Medical Secretary, Offset Printing, Remedial

Education, Word Processing, and GED Preparation.

Centro de Amistad, Inc, (Guadalupe, AZ)

Founded in 1977, Centro de Amistad, Inc. is a

community-based behavioral health agency which strives to

empower the Indolatino community to be healthy -- physically,

mentally, and spiritually -- through various programs. Its

programs include: outpatient behavioral and mental health

therapy; wellness services; immunization clinics; prenatal

support/education for pregnant women; well baby clinics;

diabetes screening; and exercise/education related activities

with an organizational/leadership component. Centro de

Amistad is also currently developing policy, advocacy,

training, and experimental models relating to the Indolatino

population.

6a

Centro de la Familia de Utah (Salt Lake City, UT)

Centro de la Familia de Utah has been providing direct

services and advocacy for Utah's minority populations since

1975. Although Centro de la Familia addresses the problems

common to most minorities, it has developed a particular

expertise with respect to Hispanics, and its mission is to

strengthen the Hispanic family by promoting self-sufficiency.

To achieve this, it works to: provide services that will

strengthen the family; develop linkages with other providers to

facilitate these services; mobilize Hispanic community

resources; provide data on the Hispanic community; identify

and eliminate gaps in the social service delivery system;

institutionalize its organizational philosophy; conduct data

collection and evaluations to enhance its programs; and provide

training opportunities to Hispanics and non-Hispanics.

Centro de Salud Familiar La Fé, Inc, (El Paso, TX)

Founded in 1968, Centro de Salud Familiar La Fé, Inc.

is a community health center that provides comprehensive

health care services primarily to the indigent Hispanic

community of E] Paso County. Primary health care services

include: clinical evaluation; gynecology; adolescent care;

immunizations; pre- and post-natal care; family planning;

podiatry; HIV screening, treatment, and case management; and

comprehensive dental services. Auxiliary services include

pharmacy, diagnostic laboratory, radiology, referrals, patient

transportation, translations, health education programs, and

social services.

Centro Latino de San Francisco (San Francisco, CA)

Founded in 1972, Centro Latino de San Francisco

strives to enhance the quality and lifestyle of the elderly in San

Francisco. It provides individual and group counseling for

7a

seniors needing professional attention; employment and

housing advocacy; recreational and educational activities:

assistance in securing Medicare, Medi-Cal, and Social Security

benefits; and hot nutritious lunches for seniors both on-site and

at home. Centro Latino also offers educational programs for

Tamilies in collaboration with NCLR's C’E? program. It

provides evening family reading classes for adults and an after-

school Academia del Pueblo academic enrichment program for

at-risk elementary school students. It also administers testing

and provides citizenship classes in English and Spanish.

CHARO Community Development Corporation (Los

Angeles, CA)

Founded in 1967, CHARO Community Development

Corporation's mission is to design programs which provide

quality services with a positive return on resource investment

and to contribute toward the economic and social improvement

in the Latino community. CHARO accomplishes this by

developing self-sustaining programs, ensuring the quality of

services, and encouraging a collaborative process with the

community. It operates the following divisions: economic

development; environmental services; CHARO Industries:

affordable housing development; career center; and child care

development centers.

Chicano Federation of San Diego County, Inc. (San Diego,

CA)

The Chicano Federation of San Diego County was

formed in 1968 to develop leadership in the Mexican-American

community, promote community development, provide high-

quality services, and advocate on behalf of the Latino

community. It provides employment and training, social and

health services, conducts economic development projects, and

8a

constructs housing for elderly and low-income residents of San

Diego County.

Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (CPLC) (Phoenix, AZ)

Founded in 1969, CPLC's mission is to provide

individuals and families in the community the opportunities

they need to improve their quality of life. Now a statewide

organization with offices in several communities, CPLC has

developed into a community development corporation which

carries out housing and economic development activities such

as planning, research, and technical assistance for small

businesses, as well as social, employment, education and

training, counseling, and legalization services for low-income

people throughout Arizona.

Chinese Progressive Association (CPA) (Boston, MA)

CPA is a grassroots community-based organization

whose mission is to work for full equality and empowerment

for Chinese Americans. CPA has a workers’ center which is

run by and for immigrant workers to educate, organize, and

advocate for their rights on the job or on the unemployment

~line. CPA also provides English-as-a-Sec 1-Language and

citizenship classes, and drop-in social services to hundreds of

immigrants each year.

CPA was founded nearly twenty years ago and is best

known for its organizing around such issues as immigrant

“ rights and political empowerment; workers’ rights to decent

wages, working conditions, and a safety net for the

unemployed; parent decision-making and participation in

children's education; and community control of land

development and environmental justice.

9a

Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo, Inc. (Brawley, CA)

Founded in 1970, Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo, Inc.

works to provide direct access to comprehensive, quality

primary and preventive health care for underserved residents

of the Imperial and Palo Verde Valleys of Southern California.

It operates six rural health clinics which provide walk-in

medical services at an affordable cost. Its services include

family planning, health education, Women and Infant Care

nutrition, social services, transportation, and a Boys & Girls

Club.

Colonias del Valle, Inc. (Pharr, TX)

Colonias del Valle, Inc. provides advocacy and

resource mobilization to improve the socio-economic

conditions of residents of colonias (rural unincorporated

communities), and to upgrade substandard housing through

weatherization and rehabilitation. Its constituency is primarily

farmworker families in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South

Texas. Programs include day care, education, job skills

Corporate Fund for Children (Austin, TX)

The Corporate Fund for Children was established in

1979 by the Levi Strauss Foundation and the Texas

Department of Human Services to create a matching fund for

federal dollars to be used for the development of child care

centers in rural Texas. Today, the mission of the Corporate

Fund still includes creating economic support opportunities in

rural communities. However, the mission is broader, now

encompassing full community development. Through its

statewide technical assistance grants, it offers CBOs support in

the area of child care, community arts, parenting, advocacy,

10a

Escuela de la Raza Unida (Blythe, CA)

Founded in 1972, Escuela de la Raza Unida is a

nonprofit, public benefit educational institution offering

bilingual/bicultural education for grades K-12. Escuela is

geared to meet the needs of farmworkers’ children. It is one

of a handful of autonomous, Chicano-operated alternative

schools in the United States. Escuela also serves as a

community-based organization in the Palo Verde Valley

actively addressing the needs of the farmworker community.

Its activities include: operation of a non-commercial and

bilingual educational radio station; paralegal services;

community organizing; and sponsorship of cultural events.

Friendly House, Inc. (Phoenix, AZ)

Friendly House, Inc. is a social service agency whose

mission is to eliminate illiteracy among Hispanics. It is

dedicated to the betterment of immigrants who reside in the

South Phoenix area. Friendly House offers the following

programs: immigration assistance, education, social

services/counseling, youth programs, home/personal care,

rehabilitation, information and referral services, and parenting

skills training. In collaboration with NCLR's C’E’ program,

Friendly House operates after school academic enrichment

programs for elementary and junior high school students and

education and literacy programs for their parents. Although

the majority of its clients are of Hispanic origin, Friendly

House offers its services to anyone in need.

Greater Dallas Foundation, Inc. (Dallas, TX)

Founded in 1981, the Greater Dallas Foundation, Inc.

is a private, nonprofit corporation organized to facilitate the

provision of legal assistance to underprivileged people who are

unable to afford the services of a private attorney. The

lla

Foundation works primarily to link disadvantaged clients with

private attorneys, who are encouraged to take significant cases

with the associated costs and/or legal fees underwritten by the

Foundation. Community development activities are a new

focus of the Foundation, which will work in housing, business,

and community development. The Foundation also provides

advocacy and youth leadership training.

Guadalupe Center, Inc, (GCI) (Kansas City, MO)

GCI is a community-based organization which seeks to

serve the needs of the elderly, youth, and other residents of the

Westside community, as well as Hispanics throughout the

Kansas City metropolitan area. It provides comprehensive

services including education, elderly services, day care, teen

pregnancy services, recreation, and employment and training.

It operates an alternative high school and helps operate a

neighborhood parochial elementary scaool. In collaboration

with NCLR's C’E’ program, GCI offers an Academia del

Pueblo program for elementary school students and adult

education activities for their families.

Hispanic American Council, Inc. (Kalamazoo, MI)

Founded in 1982, the Hispanic American Council, Inc.

strives to advocate for the Hispanic population in southwest

Michigan and to nourish and encourage their diverse cultural

heritage within the larger community. The Council seeks to

assist Hispanics in maintaining self-sufficiency and fostering

social and economic well-being by concentrating on education,

employment, and housing. Its services include immigration

assistance, English-as-a-Second-Language (Family Reading

Program), court interpretation, emergency interpretation,

health referrals, food referrals, clothing, job placement,

resume preparation, and housing referrals.

12a

Hispanic Coalition (Miami, FL)

The Hispanic Coalition's purpose is to promote the

unification and active participation of Hispanic organizations

in Miami, to enable them to voice their needs and concerns in

order to receive equal economic, social, political, and cultural

benefits in the State of Florida. It provides community

development, educational, professional/career development,

employment and training, immigration services, and

information and referral services.

Housing for Mesa, Inc. (Mesa, AZ)

Founded in 1988, Housing for Mesa, Inc. is a

nonprofit, community-based housing development corporation

that promotes the creation and preservation of permanent,

affordable housing and provides housing support services for

low-income families and individuals with children. Housing

for Mesa has created a private/public partnership in which

public resources, such as local Community Development Block

Grants and state funds, are leveraged to bring in additional

private resources and in-kind contributions from the

community, including participation by local lending

institutions. Current housing programs include: First-Time

Homebuyer Program; substantial rehabilitation of existing

homeownership housing units; and housing information and

Houston Community Services (Houston, TX)

Houston Community Services was incorporated in 1975

with three primary missions: to operate a social service

center, to provide cultural enrichment, and to carry out

economic development. It provides a variety of services to the

community, including notary, income tax preparation,

l3a

immigration services, and referral to jobs and other agencies

in the Hispanic barrio of Houston.

Humanidad, Inc, (Rocky Hill, CT)

Founded in 1980, Humanidad, Inc. is a nonprofit

agency which provides bilingual/bicultural educational and

residential services, as well as advocacy and health care for

persons with disabilities. Its services include residential

programs for person with developmental disabilities.

Humanidad maintains five independent community residential

homes in the greater Hartford region, each serving a small

number of clients. Direct care is provided 24 hours a day by

more than 30 full-time and part-time employees and

contractors.

La Causa, Inc, (Milwaukee, WI)

Incorporated in 1972, La Causa, Inc. serves over 4,000

children, adults, and families each year. La Causa's services

include a Pre-College Education Center for adults. Family

Resource Center, Learnfare, Parental and Family

Responsibility consortium, Crisis Nursery, Satellite Homes.

Nurturing Program, Respite for Special Needs Children, day

care, Head Start, kindergarten, Hispanic Early Learning

Program, and foster care.

Latin American Professional Women's

Association (LAPWA) (Los Angeles, CA)

LAPWA, which originated from the Los Angeles

Bilingual Secretaries Association in 1975, provides a mutual

support group for Latinas working to enrich themselves

vocationally, educationally, and culturally. It achieves this

through different programs, such as a scholarship fund for

l4a

Latinas who are heads of household over the age of 25 and in

college; a "Hermanita/Little Sisters Program," a project that

matches Latina "Big Sister” companions with young Latinas;

and a series of educational and informative speakers.

Latin Americans for Social and Economic

Development, Inc. (LA SED) (Detroit, MI)

Founded in 1969, LA SED promotes social and

economic development of the Hispanic community and all

residents of Southwest Detroit. It provides employment and

cine wenthesiontions temmetinn end wfeel.

educational services and advocacy, as well as senior citizen

and youth services. LA SED sponsors and coordinates an

annual “Yuletide Fiesta" which supplies food, toys, and

clothing to the needy during the Christmas season.

Latino Family Services (Detroit, MI)

Latino Family Services is an organization that provides

a wide range of family and youth services to Latinos and other

residents of the Hispanic barrio of Detroit. It operates a

AIDS education and testing, counseling and referral,

therapeutic and support groups, and in-school and summer

youth prevention activities.

LEARN, Inc. Educational Talent Search (Lubbock, TX)

LEARN, Inc. Educational Talent Search is an

organization designed to assist individuals who have academic

potential to enter or re-enter programs of secondary and post-

secondary education. LEARN's participants come from many

cultural backgrounds and span a wide range from youth to the

elderly. Its services include counseling students about

vocational, academic, and career choices; helping in the

Sa

application process for admissions; ACT and SAT registration;

Mexican American Commission (Lincoln, NE)

The Mexican American Commission is a statewide

Governor-appointed Board whose mission is to advocate on

behalf of the Hispanic community within the State of Nebraska

in the areas of employment, health, education, housing,

the general welfare of Hispanics. The Commission closely

follows legislation in Nebraska to promote favorable laws and

to oppose laws detrimental to the Hispanic community.

The Mexican Community Committee of South Chicago

(MCC) (Chicago, IL)

Founded in 1959, MCC offers educational programs,

counseling, organized sports, and cultural activities in order to

enhance the well being of the youth and families of Southeast

Chicago. By providing advocacy programs with youth-serving

agencies in the community, MCC works actively to prevent

juvenile delinquency. MCC also offers job development,

bilingual educational support, a dropout prevention program,

residents to volunteer in agency programs to promote pride in

Founded in 1979, NAF is a statewide organization that

serves communities in 93 Nebraska counties with the purpose

well-being. Through its seven regional offices, NAF provides

services which include: Adult Basic Education (includes

16a

English-as-a-Second-Language and GED preparation);

vocational/occupational training; on-the-job training;

counseling and referrals to employment; supportive and

emergency services; outreach to and health services for

migrants, seasonal farmworkers, and low-income women and

children; HIV/AIDS and substance abuse education and

prevention; advocacy and translation; and assistance with

family immigration benefits.

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA) (Seattle,

WA)

NAPCA represents Asian/Pacific Islander elders at the

national level, preparing policy recommendations to improve

awareness, access, and utilization of services. In addition,

NAPCA networks with Asian/Pacific Islander community-

based service providers and mainstream aging organizations to

enhance the capabilities of Asian Pacific communities to meet

the needs of their elderly through strong formal and informal

NCEC is a minority community-based organization

which focuses its efforts on responding to the cultural,

radio station, produces radio programming to help such

El Proyecto del Barrio, Inc. (Arleta, CA)

Founded in 1970, El Proyecto del Barrio, Inc. is a

ae di bilingual /bicultural

17a

comprehensive community services and advocacy in the areas

of: drug/alcohol prevention and treatment; job training and

employment; primary health care; and education. The primary

target population is Latino and other economically

disadvantaged youth and adults in the San Fernando Valley.

El Proyecto's programs and services include: health

education, family health care clinics, a prenatal service center,

youth services, an early intervention program, an outpatient

drug free program, a community resource center, and an

Rural Opportunities, Inc. (Rochester, NY)

Rural Opportunities, Inc., is a multistate, nonprofit

corporation, organized in 1969 to provide services to and

advocate on behalf of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and

rural disadvantaged individuals. Its mission is the

improvement of the lives and living conditions of its

constituency through self-help and advocacy. Rural

Opportunities, Inc. offers programs in adult employment,

business and economic development, children and youth

services, participant support, advocacy, and employer

assistance programs.

Servicios de La Raza, Inc. (Denver, CO)

Servicios de La Raza, Inc., established in 1972, is a

state-licensed, bilingual, human services organization. Its

mission is to provide and advocate for comprehensive,

population of Denver, Colorado. Mental health, alcohol

treatment, youth development, employment training, and a

variety of basic emergency services are provided in an

18a

Southwest Key Program (Austin, TX)

Founded in 1987, the Southwest Key Program is a

private, nonprofit agency which operates 23 community-based

treatment programs for delinquent youth and their families in

major cities across Texas and Arizona. It has designed and

implemented innovative program models for federal, state, and

local agencies, and currently operates seven different program

models. Programs include an outreach and tracking program,

day treatment; residential treatment centers; in-home services

for abused and neglected youth; a program for runaways; a

family preservation program; and a program which provides

services to delinquent youth and their families from the time

they are incarcerated in state institutions to their eventual

release to standard parole.

Spanish Speaking Council of Reading and Berks County

(Reading, PA)

The Spanish Speaking Council of Reading and Berks

County, founded in 1977, serves the needs of the low-income

and Hispanic community of Reading and Berks County in

Pennsylvania. The center is a multiservice provider striving

to promote individual self-sufficiency, a strong family, and a

cohesive community by providing programs such as education,

support for the elderly; an escort servive; housing

rehabilitation; drug education; AIDS prevention education;

child abuse advocacy; youth violence prevention; and

pres-ntations through radio (La Voz Latina) and television

(Hispanic Center Presents).

Founded in 1968, Repertorio Espanol serves as a

catalyst for cultural exchange between Spanish-speaking and

’

19a

English-speaking Americans, as well as between the United

States and its nearest neighbors, by bringing theater to a broad

audience in New York City and across the country.

Repertorio Espanol offers the best of Latin American, Spanish,

and Hispanic-American theater in distinctive, quality

productions while working to create a professional company of

actors, singers, musicians, and directors who perform in the

Spanish language.

Sparks Housing Development Corporation (El Paso, TX)

Founded in 1979, Sparks Housing Development

Corporation is a community organization made up of residents

of the Sparks colonia. The organization represents residents

in their efforts to improve living conditions by getting water,

electric, and other services to the area. Sparks also assists

residents who do not speak or understand English with needs

such as applications for services.

Student Alternatives Program, Inc. (San Antonio, TX)

Founded in 1990, Student Alternatives Program, Inc.

is a nonprofit organization which plans, develops, and

implements curriculum and instructional services for at-risk

and dropout youth from the ages of 14-21 through

performance-based contracts with school districts in the State

of Texas. The curriculum includes the essential elements

required for students to attain their high school diploma from

the participating school districts. GED instruction is also

provided. The organization has 24 instructional centers

throughout the state, representing 28 school districts.

20a

Tejano Center for Community Concerns, Inc. (TCCC)

(Houston, TX)

Founded in 1992, TCCC is a community-based,

nonprofit agency whose mission is to improve opportunities for

Hispanics through the provision of educational, social,

housing, and economic development initiatives. It operates

youth violence prevention programs, ABC/ESL classes, drug

abuse and AIDS prevention, and gang intervention and

prevention. TCCC is also developing a foster care group

home and shelter, organizing resident and homeowner groups,

and beginning a home ownership program for low-income

families. Ten single family homes were built in 1995 and 50

single family units are projected for 1996. The newest

initiative of TCCC is the Raul Yzaguirre Charter School for

Success, which targets Hispanic 7th and 8th grade students and

will feature one of the most creative and individualized

education programs for middle school youth in the country.

Texas Enterprise for Housing Development, Inc. (TEHDI)

(Mission, TX)

TEHDI was incorporated in 1991 to develop affordable

housing programs in the South Texas area. TEHDI develops

multi-family units for very low-income families through the

acquisition of Resolution Trust Corporation single family units,

and generating new multi-family units. TEHDI also sponsors

an affordable home ownership program for low-income

families.

Valle del Sol, Inc. (Phoenix, AZ)

Founded in 1970, Valle del Sol's mission is to

empower its community through advocacy and a continuum of

culturally sensitive health services, partnerships, and social

services. Programs include substance abuse prevention and

2la

treatment, and a wide range of counseling services for youth

and families. Valle del Sol is the founder of the Hispanic

Leadership Institute of Phoenix, now operating in partnership

with Arizona State University. Valle del Sol also helps

provide medical services in conjunction with local hospitals.

Washington Alliance for Immigrant and Refugee Justice

(Seattle, WA)

The Washington Alliance for Immigrant and Refugee

Justice is an alliance of community-based organizations and

individuals dedicated to upholding human and civil rights for

all immigrants and refugees. The Alliance pursues its mission

through community empowerment, public education, political

advocacy, and direct action. The work of the Alliance is

guided by a nine-member steering committee, which includes

representatives of community-based, labor, religious, student,

educational, social service, and legal advocacy organizations.

Westside Housing Organization (WHO) (Kansas City, MO)

Founded in 1973, WHO is a nonprofit community

development corporation whose mission is to provide decent,

safe, and affordable housing in the Westside. WHO programs

have included substantial and moderate rehabilitation, minor

and emergency repairs, energy conservation improvements, a

tool lending library, contractor assistance and referrals, and

technical assistance on repairs for residents. WHO has been

involved in the community as a local rental manager for over

13 years, and is also involved in the development, ownership,

and management of rental properties.