ABSTRACT
In 2006 the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was up for reauthorization, and people cannot vote if the ballot is in a language that they do not understand. For this reason, in 1975 a section (Section 203) had been added to the Act requiring multilingual ballots for non-English speakers. The re-authorization, especially Section 203, was controversial and hotly debated, and while the debate on the floor of the US Congress was conducted in English, the two sides spoke interestingly different versions of English. Those who were opposed to the measure tended to repeat words like “Mexico,” “foreign,” “Hispanic,” “immigrant,” and “assimilation,” while those who supported the measure preferred to use words like “citizens,” “voters,” “discrimination,” “participation,” and of course “rights” (Subtirelu 2013: 47). According to Subtirelu, each side was using a strategic version of their common language that conveyed attitudes toward language and its relation to American identity. The anti-Section 203 lawmakers presented English “as a neutral element that has some natural connection to the United States”; further, language (in this case, English) was seen as crucial “in uniting a collectivized image of the United States (often vaguely represented with we and our)” (49). English came across then as a necessary part of “civic nationalism”: a person who does not speak English is excluded from full membership in the nation. The pro-Section 203 advocates to the contrary used “a discourse of inclusion that represents: (1) non-English speakers as having legitimate claims to the right to vote; and (2) S203 as a means of achieving the desirable purposes of promoting democracy and combating discrimination” (55). Non-English speakers too were voters and citizens, and English was not part of the definition of the American nation. In the end, Section 203 was re-enacted for another twenty-five years.
