Editorial:
It first caught our attention a couple of weeks ago when one of the many e-newsletters we receive noted the story of the city council candidate in Arizona that had to take an English test to determine if she understood English well enough to run for office.
Arizona is the epicenter for everything anti-Hispanic. But it is unheard of that any political candidate has to face any sort of test to determine eligibility to run for public office. Since we first heard about this story, the candidate failed the test and has been banned from running for public office. The decision was upheld by the State Supreme Court last week. We found this incredible that a U.S. citizen is banned from running for public office.
The candidate was Alejandrina Cabrera, a U.S. citizen who lives in the city of San Luis, a community near the Mexican border where most speak Spanish. Ms Cabrera has admitted that her English needs work. But the judge ruled based on the Arizona state law which requires public officials to know English and barred Cabrera from appearing on the ballot in March. This ruling has sparked a debate about the slow assimilation process and the issue of English as the official language of the United States. Equally important a Spanish speaking city council member stokes fears of a divided country, divided by language.
We believe that any person who runs for public office in the U.S. should have a basic understanding of English, reading and writing, not only to represent their constituency but to also represent the city. Public officials need the ability to communicate beyond the boundaries of city limits. But it should not be a sociolinguistics expert who writes and administers an English test to determine who is fit to represent a community.
The question of who should represent a community should be determined by the voters. This is the way Democracy works. If a person is willing to serve, as Cabrera has had a history of being politically active in her community, instead of judicial barriers, there should be opportunity for this person to put forth her name and ideas as a candidate. It is up to the citizens to determine whether or not someone is fit to represent them in office. What will be next, if the law is allowed to stand, intelligence tests in Massachussetts? Morality tests in Minnesota?
While the Republican Presidential debates across the country fuel Right Wing/Tea Party rhetoric about assimilation, English-only laws, and bilingual education, for the Hispanic community, this ruling is seen as yet another effort to limit and keep in place the Hispanic community.
Right Wing fear of Hispanic community growth is no more obvious than in Arizona, where SB 1070 introduced the first stringent and comprehensive anti-immigrant legislation, banning of Hispanic/Chicano teachings, and the state law limiting Spanish speakers from running for office.
The effort to limit Hispanic empowerment can also be seen in Escondido where there is a strong anti-Hispanic element that is trying to block district elections in order to preserve the status quo.
This country is a copycat country, and with the legal success of Arizona limiting the ability of Spanish speaking candidates from running for office, we fear that it won’t be long before we start seeing other states trying to incorporate the same type of laws. But this is America, a country that prides itself on being the land of the free, of self-determination, taking pride in pulling ones’ self up by their boot straps, and in Democracy. Creating laws that limit all these ideas is just plain wrong. It is not a question if Cabrera speaks English well enough to satisfy some law, but whether or not Cabrera is regarded well enough by the voters to represent the community. It is the right of the voters to make that determination, not some sociolinguistics! The Arizona law and the judge’s ruling are the beginning of a slippery slope which diminishes the power of our citizens to determine who should represent them.