The Salt Lake Tribune offers this report. Some who favor reauthorization of VRA section 203 (the foreign language provisions) might be upset that the question of ballot translation is becoming emboiled in the immigration/English only debate. (Note the ignorance of the anti-illegal immigration activist quoted in the article as saying: “You can’t vote unless you are a citizen. You can’t be a citizen unless you speak English.” Of course, we don’t give a literacy test to any citizen born in the U.S. who is otherwise eligible to vote.) When I was on Airtalk yesterday talking about the Padilla v. Lever case, it was clear that some listeners are connecting questions over 203 with the broader immigrant debate. See also this posting by Peter Kirsanow.
But there’s a silver lining. It can help bolster the case for the measure’s constitutionality. (Here are Dan Tokaji’s earlier thoughts on that issue.) The stories like the one coming out of Utah help illustrate the intentional discrimination that likely would arise against those who are eligible to vote but may not speak English (well) in the event that Congress would not renew section 203.