Lawmakers believe English bill has no negative connotation

By James Patrick Schmidt

Published March 2, 2007

The Missouri House of Representatives passed legislation on Tuesday that would prevent Spanish, French and German from being used in official proceedings. Don't even ask about Pig Latin.

The proposed Constitutional amendment, which passed in the House 124-28 and was sent to the Senate Pensions, Veterans' Affairs and General Law Committee Thursday, would require the use of English in all official proceedings in the state. If the bill passes in the Senate and is signed by the governor, it would then be placed on the ballot in the 2008 general election.

According to the bill, "Official proceedings shall be limited to any meeting of a public governmental body at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy formulated, whether such meeting is conducted in person or by means of communication equipment, including but not limited to, conference call, video conference, Internet chat or Internet message board."

The bill does not affect informal gatherings of individuals of governmental bodies, as long as they are not attempting to dodge the requirements of the bill. This definition is very similar to that used in the Missouri Sunshine Law.

Rep. Brian Nieves, R-Union, the bill's sponsor, feels this is a positive step for Missouri.

"It's just to make sure that any official proceedings of the state would be conducted in English," he said. "That does not, of course, prevent anybody having translation or printing in another language, just that the official proceedings will be in English."

Nieves also said that residents who do not speak or understand English would be accommodated.

"That's already provided for by federal law, the Constitution already has equal protection to provide for translation when necessary," he said. "If a person was going to give testimony in a language other than English, they would need a translator, which is what they need right now if they are going to give testimony in another

language."

The sponsor also explained that the bill's purpose is to solidify practices already in place in the state.

"Passage of this resolution in no way, shape or form, will change anything," he said. "Right now, all official proceedings are done in English, and this resolution keeps that from changing."

Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, a co-sponsor of the bill, sees this as an opportunity to prevent issues in the future.

"As the state changes and as the composition of the state changes, we simply need to come right out and say that all official proceedings are in English," Robb said. "It doesn't hurt anything, it just sets the table for keeping potential nonsense out of official hearings."

Nieves emphasized that the bill will not have negative consequences for Missourians.

"There has been some confusion. There's a very small lunatic fringe that is trying to attach some negative buzzwords such as English only to the legislation," Nieves said. "This legislation is not English only, English only is entirely different. There's a few people in the lunatic fringe that are against this legislation that want to convince people that it's English only."

Rep. Judy Baker, D-Columbia, and House Minority Leader Jeff Harris, D-Columbia, also voted in favor of the legislation, but they had concerns.

"I went ahead and voted for the bill with the understanding that some of those concerns would be taken care of as the bill made it way through the process," Baker said. "There was a lot of discussion about the provision of services to individuals who don't understand English and the state would have some responsibility to provide translation."

Baker also predicted that the bill would be challenged if it passes.

"I think there will be some post-legislation court cases to clarify the laws and ensure the rights of all individuals," she said.

Harris said that he doesn't think that the bill will have much impact, and that he doesn't see language as the most important issue.

"It's basically codifies existing practice in official type proceedings," he said. "I think the largest question is not this bill but are we going to do anything as a state to crack down on those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants."