Language Legislation in Iowa: Lessons Learned from the Enactment and Application of the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act

AuthorEvan L. Seite
Pages03

Evan L. Seite. J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2010; B.A., Grinnell College, 2007. I owe a debt of gratitude to my family, friends, and the writers and editors of Volumes 94 and 95 of the Iowa Law Review for their support and guidance through the writing process. Special thanks to Grant Woodard for pointing me toward this topic. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, Gary and Deb Seite, for their constant dedication and encouragement in all of my endeavors. All errors and omissions are my own.

Page 1371

I Introduction

In 2002, the Iowa General Assembly passed the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act (“IELRA”), proclaiming English as the official language of Iowa.1 The official proclamation remained dormant for four years, until King v. Mauro,2 when a sponsor of the bill sued the Secretary of State to remove multilingual voter registration cards from a state website. The case is a lens through which we can view the language-legislation debate in Iowa and better understand the politics and implications of official-language legislation throughout the United States.

A combination of public misunderstanding of language litigation and clever political gamesmanship resulted in a push to pass Iowa’s official-language law with very little consideration as to how the plain language of the law would apply to governmental actions. Part II reviews the enactment of Iowa’s official-language act by highlighting the nature of the rhetoric that surrounded the law’s enactment. Part III examines King v. Mauro and the case’s implications on the larger official-language debate. Finally, Part IV discusses the IELRA and the possible application of an official-English mandate in future state action.

II Official-Language Legislation in Iowa

The history of the IELRA’s enactment illuminates the political rhetoric surrounding official-language legislation and, ultimately, illustrates how public understanding of potential legislation may belie its application once enacted. Part II.A first examines the rise and ultimate success of the official-English movement in Iowa. Part II.B examines the IELRA and its exceptions, and Part II.C considers how the ambiguity in the language of the IELRA affects Iowa’s governance.

A The Growth Of Iowa’s Official-English Movement

In 1997, State Senator Steve King, a Republican from Kiron, Iowa, sponsored a proposal to declare English the “common language” of Iowa.3 King expressed his vision to create an “umbrella of communication” to strengthen state unity.4 Claiming that a declaration of an official language was unnecessary, Senate Democrats argued that Iowa legislators should instead commit to ‘“teach English to all those’ . . . ‘who have a foreignPage 1372 language as their native tongue’”5 rather than create a state-sanctioned official language. Despite this Democratic opposition, the Iowa Senate ultimately approved the bill.6 While the bill enjoyed strong popular support at the county level, the State House faced an issue-intense schedule and did not make time to vote on the bill before the end of the legislative session, effectively killing this iteration of language legislation.7

The language-legislation issue reemerged in 1999 when Iowa Senate Republicans introduced a new official-English bill, citing their desire to help legal immigrants and foreign nationals adapt to the culture and realities of life in Iowa.8 Official-English proponents asserted their intent to encourage non-English speakers to succeed economically, reasoning that some immigrants unable to speak English would be doomed to poverty.9 The bill attempted to encourage cultural assimilation in two ways. First, it would fund the development of a center designed to help legal immigrants and foreign nationals adapt to life in Iowa.10 Second, the bill would enact a provision in the Iowa Code declaring English the official state language.11 Supporters of the bill argued that such a law would have little day-to-day effect on state governance, citing the twenty-nine states and eighty nations that have adopted an official language.12 Though the attempt to recognize English as the official language spurred a large public debate about the issues surrounding language politics, this official-English iteration failed when the Iowa House narrowly voted to remove the bill’s official-English provision.13

Even though the 1999 bill failed to garner enough political support to establish an official language, it provided the foundation for future debates about the issue. Supporters and detractors on both sides of the political aisle indicated that an official-English amendment would be merely a symbolic gesture. For example, when asked about the effect of designating a state language, Representative Philip Wise, a Democrat, said that such a law wouldPage 1373 do “nil, zero, nothing, nada, zilch.”14 Republican Majority Leader Brent Siegrist—who was one of seven Republicans to join with forty-four Democrats to defeat the official-English provision—called the move to establish a state language “mostly symbolism.”15

The argument for a symbolic message garnered strong popular support, and official-English proponents found welcoming forums for official-language laws at the county level.16 By October 2000, eleven of Iowa’s ninety-nine counties had enacted resolutions to make English the official language of county business.17 These laws lent further credence to the interpretation of an official-language act as having a purely symbolic meaning because the county-level documents affected were, in the vast majority of instances, already exclusively published in English.18

Marshall County, the eleventh county to establish an official-English resolution, was home to more than three thousand Latino immigrants— making it the most ethnically diverse county to pass an official-language resolution.19 The success of the resolution drew from a 2200-signature petition organized by the local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.20 The resolution attracted ire from the Latino community for the racist implications of declaring an official, and perhaps impliedly superior, language.21 U.S. Attorney Don Nickerson voiced a strong desire to challenge the constitutionality of the county provision, but he could not overcome the lack of credible discrimination complaints that would provide standing for court action.22

While official-English sentiment percolated in debates and legislation at the county level, the November 2000 elections ensured continued Republican control in the Iowa House and Senate.23 This victory finally provided Iowa Republicans the political stability required to claim aPage 1374 mandate to pass the legislation that eluded them in 1999.24 The Republicans also had public support to rely on: county-level language laws infused the public consciousness with language politics, and a large majority of Iowans supported legislation that would require English as the exclusive language of official state actions.25

An official-English bill, co-sponsored by Republicans Senator Steve King and Representative Dwayne Alons, quickly became a primary Republican legislative objective in the 2001 term.26 To clarify the implications of adopting an official language, Senator King offered two hypothetical situations to illustrate his envisioned purpose of an official-English law.27 First, King suggested that if the Storm Lake Chief of Police wanted to post signs in multiple languages, she could—as long as one of them was in English.28 Second, King said that Marshalltown City Council members could hold a meeting entirely in Spanish, so long as the official minutes were available in English.29 In so doing, King emphasized the symbolic value of an official language, claiming that the law’s passage would maintain English as the standard language of State government business, as well as send a message to the federal government that Iowans believe English is the official national language of the United States.30 On March 8, 2001, King’s bill passed the Iowa Senate after a late-night debate about the meaning of an official-English law.31 Once again, claims of racist motivations rose to the surface of the debate. State Senator Betty Soukup, a Democrat of New Hampton, said, “This bill simply stirs the pot of bigotry, hatred and racism.”32 While issues of racism lurked in the background, state legislators primarily focused on the nature of the message that an official-English law would send.33 Senator Johnie Hammond, a Democrat of Ames, claimed that the law was “a do-nothing bill except for one thing: It hurts people.”34 Strife between representatives in the Iowa House delayed the bill as the Democratic critics of the legislation suggested a compromise to acknowledge English as the most commonly used language in Iowa, as well as toPage 1375 emphasize the importance of English proficiency rather than recognizing an official state language.35

After nearly a year of committee debate, the House Local Government Committee approved the bill thirteen votes to five, sending it...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT