September 20, 2006

Padilla v. Lever: en banc Ninth Circuit Panel holds that petitions need not be translated

By a 10-1 vote, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit has reversed an earlier three judge decision holding that under the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act, California recall petitions must be translated into minority languages in covered jurisdictions. The en banc panel summarized its decision as follows:

"A provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a(c), requires that, in certain States with substantial linguistic minority populations of voting age, election materials must be provided in the applicable minority languages as well as English. This requirement applies to any covered State or political subdivision that “provides any . . . materials or information relating to the electoral process.” Id. (emphasis added). The question presented by this appeal is whether this requirement attaches to recall petitions initiated, circulated and paid for by private proponents of a recall, when the proponents are required to draft the petitions in a form specified by the State and county.
We conclude that § 1973aa-1a(c) does not apply to such recall petitions because they are not “provide[d]” by the State or its subdivision. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court, which rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge to a recall election triggered by petitions circulated only in English."

The court also expressed its concerns about the chilling effect the three judge decision could have on the recall process:

"Finally, a translation requirement is very likely to have a chilling effect on the petition process itself. If translation is required in Orange County, recall petitions will have to be printed, at a minimum, in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese.7 There is no provision in state law or the Voting Rights Act requiring the County to bear the costs; printing of recall petitions is done at the expense of the proponents, as in the present case. The expense and trouble of fulfilling the translation requirements are likely to deter proponents who otherwise would launch petitions. When that happens, then application of § 1973aa-1a will have had a perverse effect: it will have prevented, rather than promoted, participation in the electoral process."

You can read a press account of the case here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at September 20, 2006 10:15 AM