Court's ruling to help define English ability

It you want to hold elected office in Arizona, you need to be able to communicate in English.

That's what state law says and that's what an Arizona Supreme Court ruling this week affirms.

And that means a candidate who had been seeking a seat on the San Luis, Ariz., City Council will no longer be allowed on the ballot.

It is reasonable to expect a public official to be able to understand and communicate in English in a nation and state where that is the primary language — even if they also choose to use another language to deal with constituent issues, as could be the case in a border city like San Luis.

So, in reality, the only real issue that needed to be decided was the English proficiency of the candidate.

It was clear — and the Arizona Supreme Court concurred — that this candidate did not have sufficient proficiency based on her inability to answer various questions in English at a hearing in Yuma County Superior Court and an examination by a sociolinguistics expert.

The candidate's attorney, John Minore, rejected the decision. “This is a fine example of judicial activism. Arizona now has a English standard to be on ballot but doesn't tell you what that standard is.”

Actually, it is often the courts that help define legal standards and this ruling will undoubtedly be used to help establish where at least part of the English proficiency line is drawn, even if more of the line has to be defined in the future.