# Should elections bar candidates that can't speak English? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169 "2012-01-30T06:46:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/21 "2012-01-30T14:22:35Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Banana gasoline shrimp plus millennium double take-out order ? Answer in at least 20 words. šŸ˜ƒ I was thinking more along the lines of a bank of 1000 possible questions that the computer randomly picks from when the form is generated. Enough that there is no reasonable way to have memorized a response for each. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/22 "2012-01-30T14:49:52Z")
Not sure if anyone brought this up yet, but there already is a proficiency test-- you take it when you become a citizen. I assume the person in question is a naturalized citizen, not a citizen by birth. If people want to argue that there should be an additional requirement, then thatā€™s a different story, and I think weā€™re treading on dangerous waters. Iā€™m not going to read thru the Arizona constitution, but I would surprised if you could pass such a law and not violate it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/23 "2012-01-30T16:01:33Z")
Iā€™m not sure I see the problem here. It seems silly to want to elect someone who is supposed to represent you being unable to fulfill that duty due language problems, but itā€™s their vote. If someone will less-than-optimal English skills can represent them better than the alternative, then thatā€™s a compromise they should be allowed to make. It amazes me that we have a huge proportion of foreigners who only want to live and work, educate themselves, and represent themselves and we put a thousand roadblocks in their way over and over. I get a sort of generic embarrassment when I read this kind of stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/24 "2012-01-30T16:12:15Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Surely the whole point of electoral democracy is that itā€™s the electors who get to decide whether a candidate is qualified to do the job? Exactly. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not sure if anyone brought this up yet, but there already is a proficiency test-- you take it when you become a citizen. I assume the person in question is a naturalized citizen, not a citizen by birth. I donā€™t think thereā€™s any reason to assume that. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/25 "2012-01-30T16:18:33Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > My opinion of _that_ is that the voters got what they asked for, ā€¦ Yes. They voted NDP, which was obviously more important to them than having an MP who speaks fluent French. I have the same opinion on this Arizona kerfluffle. If the voters choose to elect as their representative someone who has a difficult time communicating in Arizonaā€™s official language of government, that is entirely up to them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/26 "2012-01-30T16:19:02Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I donā€™t think thereā€™s any reason to assume that. You donā€™t see any reason to think that a person with limited English was not born a US citizen? Not any reason at all? Pick two random people, one who is fluent and one who isnā€™t, and itā€™s 50/50 that their both of the same citizen status? Nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/27 "2012-01-30T16:27:17Z")
And while weā€™re on the subject, what about having elected officials pass a rudimentary science test, itā€™s clear to me many think the scientific method is a nefarious plot. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/28 "2012-01-30T16:29:51Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > The fact that this womanā€™s potential constituents all speak Spanish is kind of irrelevant - she would have to perform her actual duties at city hall and with city, higher government and corporate personnel in English, and at the moment, she cannot do that. > > I donā€™t believe that anyone has the right to a job for which they are unqualified. The solution is simple: learn the skills the job requires, and re-apply (run for office) at that time. So, do you think that deaf people should not be allowed to hold office? They donā€™t speak English. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/29 "2012-01-30T16:30:37Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > And while weā€™re on the subject, what about having elected officials pass a rudimentary science test, itā€™s clear to me many think the scientific method is a nefarious plot. Good idea. The next Republican administration will set one up. ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/30 "2012-01-30T16:47:43Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > \ > > It amazes me that we have a huge proportion of foreigners who only want to live and work, educate themselves, and represent themselves and we put **a thousand roadblocks** in their way over and over. I get a sort of generic embarrassment when I read this kind of stuff. bolding mine Or perhaps they could learn the native language? On to point: If she loses her case, then she needs to learn English to qualify as the laws says. If she wins, then the state needs to define the law: Maybe a high school English equivalency test, like a G.E.D. test? On the other hand, I agree with a few posters, let the voters decide and live and let live, as it were. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/31 "2012-01-30T16:53:26Z")
If she is old enough the lanugage portion of the citizenship test is waived. But my guess is that people are being a little bit racist. If she was European I doubt people would be as frustrated with her lack of language skill. I think it takes a whole lot of justification before you overturn a democratic election based on somethign taht is as easily remediable as langauge skill. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/32 "2012-01-30T17:10:23Z")
Arizonaā€™s English-as-official language amendments have been tossed out by its Supreme Court several times before because they keep requiring state officials to converse in English. I doubt the current version is different enough to stand up. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/33 "2012-01-30T17:12:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If she is old enough the lanugage portion of the citizenship test is waived. But my guess is that people are being a little bit racist. If she was European I doubt people would be as frustrated with her lack of language skill. Letā€™s leave racism out of this until there is actual evidence for it, as opposed to imagined evidence. > [@](#): > > I think it takes a whole lot of justification before you overturn a democratic election based on somethign taht is as easily remediable as langauge skill. I agree on the first part, but not on the second. For some people, itā€™s easy. For others it is not. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/34 "2012-01-30T17:12:26Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > If youā€™re talking about Ruth Ellen Brosseau, she speaks French fine. She was rusty back when she was elected, but last I saw of her was at the _Infoman_ end-of-year special, and her French was quite sufficient and even fluent. Though I hear thereā€™s some other NDP MP in the Montreal region whose French was considered dubious, and him I havenā€™t heard about in many months. I wasnā€™t really thinking of anyone in particular, other than the general refrain of ā€œ_but he/she doesnā€™t speak French!_ā€ that I kept hearing. If those complaints turned out to have been unfounded, thatā€™s a good thing. I was just presenting the situation as a general comparison to the one in Arizona and trying to see what the differences are. > [@](#): > > You should always let the voters choose who they want to represent them. In a democracy, the citizenry is the employer, so itā€™s the voters who get to decide what the requirements for the job are. Certainly having trouble following sessions of the city council is going to be a point in disfavour of this candidate, but thatā€™s something we should let the voters decide. What bothers me is the thought that voters end up with (e.g.) 4 years of useless representation because they werenā€™t presented with the facts in the first place, but I do agree with this overall statement. > [@](#): > > Iā€™ll bring up another example from Quebec. As you know, Pauline Maroisā€™s English isnā€™t very good. If sheā€™s elected premier of Quebec, sheā€™ll probably have trouble during meetings with other provincial premiers, or governors of US states. Should she be barred from seeking the job? Itā€™s definitely a point in her disfavour which is why weā€™ve heard so much about it, and will probably hear more of it during the next election campaign. But if voters decide they want her anyway, itā€™s their decision. She can always equip herself with a team of interpreters. Please donā€™t get me started on Pauline Maroisā€¦ it would be much too much of a hijack to this thread. Suffice it to say that I think that anyone who wants to speak as _my_ premier should be bilingual. She isnā€™t. She will never speak for me. The argument of ā€œshe can always equip herself with a team of interpretersā€ annoys me because of who has to pay for that interpreter - is it acceptable that politicians should go out and hire other people to do basic parts of their jobs for them at taxpayer expense? > [@JRDelirious](#): > > However if there is a proficiency requirement in one of the official languages for achieving certain things in government, then there may be an issue if the law is not clear and uniform as to what is proficiency, what is the test and who gives it. Locally administered tests looks very suspect. > > Thereā€™s a general agreement in electoral law that the \* suffrage\* is to be as universal as possible, but that \*officeholding \*may be \*reasonably \*conditioned. Every jurisdiction has legal or party-bylaws requirements to hold office that appear nowhere in the constitutional requirements. The key matter is how reasonable are the conditions and if they have a disenfranchising effect. Up here in the Great White North the TOEFL is the general standard for English-language proficiency and the [TEF or TEFaQ](http://www.collegecanada.com/tefaq.php)for French language proficiency for admittance to universities and for several jobs. In some cases, proficiency is also - theoretically - established by showing that the job candidate has fulfilled certain general-education requirements, such as Grade 11 French or English classes or the CĆ©gep course requirements ( **HJ** - am I right in thinking that there is no [Exit Exam](http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/ens-sup/ens-coll/eprv_uniforme/anglais/Introduction.asp) from the francophone colleges?). So, either a proficiency test or proof of having completed certain language courses within the provinceā€™s school system are, generally, deemed to be proof of proficiency. This could, perhaps, limit political candidates who arrived in the country after their schooling was complete, or those who did not complete a sufficient level of education (drop-outs, etc.). [It appears that there is no language minimum in either language](http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/abc-assemblee/fonction-depute/index.html#BeMNA) for being a provincial member of parliament in QuĆ©becā€¦ does anyone know where to look for more information? I think the manner in which this issue may be resolved here might be a starting point for how Arizona might want to handle this situation (which is why, of course, I keep posting about this province!) Bills are published in both English and French, though, so proficiency in at least one language is probably assumed. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/35 "2012-01-30T17:17:37Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > Or perhaps they could learn the native language? Itā€™s an excellent goal. But they deserve adequate representation in the meantime. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/36 "2012-01-30T17:17:53Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So, do you think that deaf people should not be allowed to hold office? They donā€™t speak English. šŸ˜• No, I donā€™t think that. I realize that sign language is itā€™s own language, but the fact that people in different countries - with different spoken languages - use different sign language kind of means that ASL, for example, is ā€œstill English.ā€ Thereā€™s also the ability to read and write and understand/be understood via those methods that comes into play, and a deaf person would be able to do their job in that situation. Itā€™s kind of a slippery-slope argument, isnā€™t it? A deaf person has a handicap that can and should be accommodated assuming they are otherwise qualified for the job. I donā€™t consider being a unilingual language speaker of a language different than the jobā€™s to be a handicap. You can learn to speak a second language. A deaf person cannot learn to hear. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/37 "2012-01-30T17:20:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You donā€™t see any reason to think that a person with limited English was not born a US citizen? Not any reason at all? Pick two random people, one who is fluent and one who isnā€™t, and itā€™s 50/50 that their both of the same citizen status? > > Nonsense. Weā€™re not dealing with a random sampling of people across the entire United States. We already know she lives in a part of Arizona in which the majority of people speak Spanish. No, I see no reason to assume that sheā€™s not a citizen by birth and thatā€™s not nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/38 "2012-01-30T17:21:07Z")
What, no oneā€™s going to say it? We elected George W. Bush as President twice! (Allegedly.) Surely we arenā€™t going to start requiring English proficiency NOW? In all seriousness, this seems to be a politically motivated attempt by other Spanish speakers to disqualify someone they donā€™t want to win the office from the ballot, through the sort of rigged game that is typical of everything that goes on in Arizona politics (the man they hired to conduct her proficiency test is Australian and doesnā€™t speak standard American English any more than she does). The articles indicate that the language of daily use in the community being represented here is Spanish. Itā€™s confusing why the Council conducts its business in English at all, given that they and everyone else in town purportedly are Spanish speakers at all other times, so I donā€™t see what the problem would be. I would be surprised if someone who only speaks Spanish could possibly win election in a place where that presents an issue; this seems to be a problem that would solve itself. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/39 "2012-01-30T17:23:29Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > ASL, for example, is ā€œstill English.ā€ Thereā€™s also the ability to read and write and understand/be understood via those methods that comes into play, and a deaf person would be able to do their job in that situation. No, ASL is not English, itā€™s a distinct language according to anyone with authority to speak on the situation (linguists and ASL instructors, for example). An ASL user would obviously fail the test for English proficiency that this woman was given, which is to talk for several minutes with a person whose only language is spoken Australian English. So, unless they do in fact give the same test to deaf candidates and fail them on the same criteria, she has a good case that this is targeting Spanish speakers exclusively in a discriminatory fashion. Of course, in Arizona, discriminating against Spanish speakers is not only legal but legally required, though the federal courts may take a dimmer view. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169/40 "2012-01-30T17:33:42Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > No, ASL is not English, itā€™s a distinct language according to anyone with authority to speak on the situation (linguists and ASL instructors, for example). I understand that, but what Iā€™m saying is that the signs and grammar of ASL are different than the signs and grammar of LSF and the person signing the former was also likely taught to read and write (and perhaps speak some words) in _English_ while the latter person was taught these things in _French_. The sign language does, to some extent, reflect the written language used by the signer. In that manner, an ASL-signing person is still communicating ā€œin Englishā€ while the LSF signer is communicating 'in French". Iā€™m putting quotes there for a reason - as I said, I understand that sign languages are languages and dialects in their own right, but there is still a fundamental connection to the written language of the signer. > [@](#): > > An ASL user would obviously fail the test for English proficiency that this woman was given, which is to talk for several minutes with a person whose only language is spoken Australian English. So, unless they do in fact give the same test to deaf candidates and fail them on the same criteria, she has a good case that this is targeting Spanish speakers exclusively in a discriminatory fashion. Of course, in Arizona, discriminating against Spanish speakers is not only legal but legally required, though the federal courts may take a dimmer view. I agree that this is a bad test - a deaf person cannot be expected to converse in the spoken form. _However_ if an English-ASL signer was used as an interpreter, the hypothetical deaf person would have no trouble, while if the interpreter were Spanish-LSE, there might be trouble. And this is a poor test on many fronts; the accent, relying simply on the spoken word, etc. Ms. Cabrera does have a case that this test seems to be designed to fail her, however the larger question of what is acceptable proficiency - and should it be required - still stands. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-bar-candidates-that-cant-speak-english/611169.md?page=3)