Court says LULAC lacks standing to challenge Iowa’s English Language Reaffirmation Act
By Clark Kauffman, Iowa Capital Dispatch
The Iowa Supreme Court has reversed a district court decision that cleared the way for election officials to distribute voter materials in languages other than English.
Without directly addressing the merits of Iowa’s law restricting the dissemination of government records in languages other than English, the court found that the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa lacked standing to bring its lawsuit challenging the state’s application of the English Language Reaffirmation Act.
Joe Enriquez Henry, president of LULAC Council #307, said he was disappointed in the court’s decision.
“There are over 50,000 registered voters in the state of Iowa whose primary language is not English,” Henry said. “This issue has an impact not only on Latinos but other ethnic groups and new citizens. This is a constitutional issue. You know, the right to vote is a constitutional issue, and language should never be a barrier to exercising that right. So, for the Supreme Court to say we lack standing to bring this case is totally wrong.”
Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said in a statement: “I appreciate the court’s thoughtful consideration of this case. Today’s ruling affirms our efforts to administer Iowa election laws securely, fairly, and in accordance with state and federal laws. We remain committed to maintaining a careful balance between protecting election integrity and supporting voter participation among all eligible Iowa voters.”
Friday’s ruling is tied to a 2007 case in which LULAC was not a party. In that case, a group that included then-U.S. Rep. Steve King, four county auditors, three state legislators and U.S. English Only Inc. filed a lawsuit against Iowa’s secretary of state and the Iowa Voter Registration Commission challenging the provision of voter registration forms in languages other than English.
The district court dismissed the claims of everyone but the county auditors, ruling only they had the standing to challenge the practice, and in 2008 ruled in favor of the auditors, finding that the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act unambiguously required all official government documents to be in English. While noting that language barriers could “serve as an impediment to voting” and that exceptions outlined in the law “might justify the use of non-English voter registration forms,” the judge noted that the secretary of state had never raised that argument.
The district court enjoined the secretary of state and the Iowa Voter Registration Commission “from using languages other than English in the official voter registration forms of this state.”
Thirteen years later, in 2021, LULAC sued Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, the Iowa Voter Registration Commission, and several county auditors, arguing the law, correctly interpreted, allowed for the dissemination of voting materials in languages other than English. The district court ultimately granted LULAC’s requests to dissolve the 2008 injunction.
Pate’s office appealed, and in addressing the matter, the Iowa Supreme Court said the primary question it faced was whether LULAC had standing to seek dissolution of the 13-year-old permanent injunction issued in the initial case and to seek a court interpretation of a law that did not cause any injury to LULAC itself.
In its ruling Friday, the justices concluded the district court’s 2008 decision “had no effect on LULAC’s rights, status, or legal relations … LULAC asks us to direct Secretary Pate to administer the law as LULAC wishes and to allow county officials to have the discretion to administer the law as LULAC wishes. In effect, LULAC is asking the judiciary to exercise the executive functions of the government at LULAC’s behest. This the court cannot do.”
As for LULAC’s argument that it had standing in the case due to the injury it suffered by having to spend money translating documents for members, the justices noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that a litigant “cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money” in response to a law it is attempting challenge.
In finding that LULAC lacked standing to bring its lawsuit, the justices reversed the rulings of the district court and remanded the case back to district court for an order of dismissal. All of the justices concurred in the opinion, except for Justices Thomas D. Waterman and Edward M. Mansfield, who did not take part.
Stay in the know with stories that matter — visit HolaAmericaNews.com for the latest news, culture, and community updates!
Facebook Comments
