Arizona court keeps candidate off ballot over English skills

[Bacchus4.0]

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-court-rules-candidate-weak-english-barred-021556232.html

(Reuters) - Arizona's Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a city council candidate with limited English skills could be kept off the ballot in a predominately Spanish-speaking town on the Mexico border, and her lawyers said they lacked resources to appeal.

A Yuma County Superior Court judge touched off a furor last week when he disqualified Alejandrina Cabrera, 35, from running for city council in the town of San Luis over what he called a "large gap" between her English proficiency and that required to serve as a public official.

In a brief two-page ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court did not give a reason why it sided with the lower court judge, but said a written decision would follow "in due course."

"We're all burned out and disappointed. I'm really surprised. I figured they'd throw this thing out," John Minore, an attorney for Cabrera, told Reuters in an interview.

[Ian David]

1. If only we'd had this rule when Bush was running. n/t

[Firebrand Gary]

2. Hahahahahaha

[Justice wanted]

3. That state has become the dumbest and most racist in the country.

[Kolesar]

4. Keeping digging, you racist GOPs

Every year, the population becomes 0.5% less white.
These stories are read by minorities from Chicago to Seattle.
They know you hate Latinos. You will pay for your 21st century Jim Crow agenda.

[former9thward]

5. Whatever you think of the ruling it was not GOP

The AZ Supreme Court is majority Democrats and while certainly not far left wing they are liberal. I had three of them as professors in law school at ASU and I know their politics.

[thucythucy]

8. I've read that three

of the five justices were appointed by Republicans, two by Governor Brewer (enough said) and one by Governor Hull. Is this inaccurate?

I doubt Brewer would appoint a Democrat, certainly not a liberal Democrat. Did Hull appoint a liberal Democrat?

If not, it would seem then the court is majority, 3-2, Republican, certainly majority Republican appointed. What was the vote on this decision? Did either or both of Napolitano's appointees vote with the majority?

[former9thward]

9. The vote was unanimous.

Bales, Berch,and Hurwitz are all liberals (at least liberal for AZ). I am not sure who appointed who but I do know the AZ SC has been pretty non-political in recent years and has knocked down some of the RW stuff that has come from the legislators and governor.

[thucythucy]

10. Wow!

Unanimous decision.

I wonder what the justification was. On the face of it it seems a pretty arbitrary ruling, but you usually don't get a unanimous decision unless there's some solid legal justification.

I wonder if there isn't something here that hasn't been reported accurately. I'll have to keep tuned to this one.

[former9thward]

11. It is hard to say.

This came from a very small town where Spanish is widely spoken. From what I have read there is a long term grudge match going on between different Hispanic factions in the town. The law firm representing the plaintiff is small and under financed. So who knows.

[Bacchus4.0]

12. the Arizona statehood enabling act requires all state officers to have sufficient English ability

Fifth. That said State shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,

and that ability to read, write, speak, and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of the office without the aid of an interpreter shall be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/enabling.pdf

[BadtotheboneBob]

13. Well, there it is then... However...

... does the term "state officers" cover municipal positions such as a city council seat? Therein is, I believe, the basis for the ruling and what will be cited in the written decision.

[SpankMe]

6. Judicial activism. Where's the rage?

If anything qualifies as "judicial activism", this is it. There are no laws requiring English proficiency for elected officials. (Such laws would probably be unconstitutional, likely on the basis of the First Amendment.) The judges cannot point to any statute being violated.

They're making their own personal judgments about what level of English proficiency is necessary to function as a public official. This is highly subjective and is certainly influenced by their own personal bias and ideology - the exact OPPOSITE of what judges should be doing. These rulings are not based on any written statute or legal precedent. It's all a "the-way-things-SHOULD-be" judgment and not a studied decision based on any written law or prior finding.

It's amazing that the thing will likely end here because Cabrera's lawyers simply don't have the resources to kick this up to a federal court.

If someone hears about a legal representation fund for this, please post on DU. I'll donate.

[Sgent]

15. Read the comments above

The state enabling act and constitution require that elected officials of Arizona be able to communicate without the aid of a translator in English.

[JBoy]

7. Jan Brewer comments: "We have did what was right for Arizona"

[Odin2005]

14. Bigots.

[Blue_Tires]

16. I'm curious...WHO brought this case to light in the first place?

Who's running against her or who has something to lose if she actually got elected to city council??