Coffman’s new desire to offer “bilingual ballots” contradicts his proposal to eliminate federal requirement to provide them

(Old Coffman strikes again – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Mike Coffman.

Mike Coffman.

Yesterday, during what was apparently Colorado's first candidate debate in Spanish, Rep. Mike Coffman said:

Coffman: "The federal government has obligated local governments to send bilingual ballots to everyone. I think that bilingual ballots should only go to people who need them. It's a question of saving money. I would hope that every voter will be able to get the information that he needs in a language he can understand."

But back in 2011, when Coffman proposed repealing the section of the Voting Rights Act requiring ballots to be printed in multiple languages, Coffman said nothing about making sure those who needed translated ballots get them.

Coffman: "Since proficiency in English is already a requirement for U.S. citizenship, forcing cash-strapped local governments to provide ballots in a language other than English makes no sense at all," Coffman told the Denver Post at the time.

I went back to the archive, and I couldn't find a single instance in 2011 where Coffman said everyone who needs a bilingual ballot should have one. The best I could find was an acknowledgement that some voters have "legitimate needs," but he suggested second-class solutions, like making a sample ballots available to voters somehow, without any guarantees that they even get this.

His 2011 proposal, by turning ballot-translation decisions over to local authorities and releasing local jurisdictions from the federal requirement, contradicts Coffman's statement yesterday that he wants to provide a "bilingual ballot" to "people who need them." That's not consistent with his actual 2011 proposal.

What if local officials decide that Coffman's dictionary idea is better and cheaper?

So after his debate yesterday, I asked Coffman if he'd offered a new position on English-only ballots.

He said, "No."

Coffman: "I think I was always opposed to them because the way the Justice Department took it. And they have backed away. But it wasn't just to the voters that needed them. It was going to be to every voter, an unfunded mandate by the federal government. I just thought that that was ridiculous. And there are all kinds of ways that are cheaper than that to disseminate the information. Obviously the county clerks got to make the decision, but right now it's, if they can reach a certain threshold of population. But what about the people that English isn't their language and they are below the threshold. And so we just need a different system that's smarter and certainly can be more cost-effective."

The Voting Rights Act requires ballots in multiple languages only in areas with large populations that are nonproficient in English

So if Coffman truly believes that Spanish-language ballots should be provided to those voters who need them, he'd support the requirement to do so in Voting Rights Act, despite the cost. Sure, it could be tweaked, but he'd support the mandate.

Instead, Coffman is saying the expense is more worrisome to him than the possibility of excluding voters who aren't proficient in English.

Unfortunately, journalists covering the debate between Coffman and his Democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff, did not report this key point.

0 Shares

4 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Ben Lindsey says:

    I really hope this old racist gets his butt removed from congress.

  2. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    They didn't report much, period.

  3. Old Time Dem says:

    U.S. citizens are not required to be proficient in English.

    What a douche.

  4. MADCO says:

    How does Rep Coffman define proficient in English?  It's always felt like his point is that it's less important to enable one citizen- one vote.

    I, for example, doubt his proficiency since he seems to believe that the 2nd Amendment  means everyone gets to bear arms, and that a zygote is a person (making them a citizen under the 14th Amendment).

    As far as the Voting Rights Act – we already know the conservative position: men who own land can vote- everyone else can obey their master.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.