English Only legislation first appeared in 1981 as a constitutional English Language Amendment. This proposal, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, would have banned virtually all uses of languages other than English by federal, state, and local governments. But the measure has never come to a Congressional vote, even in committee.

Meanwhile, 20 states have adopted various forms of Official English legislation (in addition to four that had already done so). Such bills are being considered in at least 7 states this year.These measures are unrelated, however, to the process of amending the U.S. Constitution.

In 1991, English Only advocates changed their strategy. Recognizing the long odds against ratifying a constitutional amendment, they began to promote a statutory form of Official English. Such a bill would apply to the federal government alone and would require only a simple majority vote in Congress (as well as the President's signature) to become law. Several versions of so-called "Language of Government" legislation have appeared since that time. One of these bills, H.R. 123, passed the House of Representatives – but not the Senate – in 1996. So the measure failed to become law.

Similar legislation is pending in the 106th Congress. If enacted, it would amend the U.S. Code in the following ways:

English would be designated the official language of the U.S. government – indeed, the only language that federal employees and officials, including members of Congress, would be permitted to use for most government business.

The English Only mandate would extend to federal "actions, documents, policies ... publications, income tax forms, informational materials," records, proceedings, letters to citizens – indeed, to any form of written communication on behalf of the U.S. government.

Exceptions to the ban on federal use of other languages would be permitted for purposes that include national security, international trade and diplomacy, public health and safety, criminal proceedings, language teaching, certain handicapped programs, and the preservation of Native American languages.

An "entitlement" would be created, ensuring the "right" of every person to communicate with the federal government in English – in effect, a guaranteee of language rights, but for English speakers only.

Civil lawsuits to enforce the law would be permitted by persons claiming to have been "injured by a violation" of it – a "right of action" that could give virtually any taxpayer the standing to sue in federal court.

Naturalization ceremonies would be specifically restricted to English only.

Bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantee minority-language voting materials in certain jurisdictions, would be repealed.

Much uncertainty remains about the practical impact of H.R. 123 on a spectrum of language services, from bilingual education to Social Security pamphlets to sign-language interpreting. If passed, its interpretation would almost certainly be determined by the courts. The House floor debate on the bill offers various views on its pros, cons, and potential effects. A letter from the Justice Department sums up the Clinton Administration's opposition to the Senate version of the legislation – even though, as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed an English Only measure into law.

1999 Legislative Highlights

1998 Legislative Highlights

Complete archive of Congressional statements on Official English legislation, 1981-1996

For an excellent and comprehensive critique of Official English, see the testimony of Edward Chen, a language rights litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Further analysis may be found in English Only Updates.

Meanwhile, opponents have proposed a legislative alternative known as English Plus, in the form of nonbinding resolutions sponsored by Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.).

To make members of Congress aware of your views on language legislation (or any other matter), you may contact your Senator or Representative by email or fax – at no charge – by clicking here. You may also want to contact members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which have jurisdiction over English Only bills.

106th Congress (1999-2000)

H. R. 123 (Barr) – "Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act"; the lead version of English Only legislation; referred to Education & Workforce Committee

H.J. Res. 21 (Doolittle) – Constitutional English Language Amendment; referred to Judiciary Committee

H.R. 50 (Stump) – "Declaration of Official Language Act of 1999"; would also repeal the Bilingual Education Act; referred to Education & Workforce Committee

H.R. 1005 (King) – "National Language Act of 1999"; would also repeal the Bilingual Education Act; referred to Education & Workforce Committee

H. Con. Res. 4 (Serrano) – English Plus resolution; a nonbinding policy statement in opposition to English Only measures; referred to Education & Workforce Committee

S. 667 (McCain) – English Plus policy statement as part of a private-school "choice" bill; would also authorize a study of Americans' multilingual proficiencies; referred to Finance Committee

105th Congress (1997-98)

104th Congress (1995-96)

102nd Congress (1991-92)

97th Congress (1981-82)

State Language Legislation – 2000

Arizona – Anti-bilingual-education initiative
Colorado – Anti-bilingual-education initiative; INVALIDATED by Colorado Supreme Court
Iowa – Official English
Maine – Official English
Massachusetts – Official English
New York – Official English
Ohio – Official English
Oklahoma – Official English initiative
Utah – Official English initiative

State Official English Laws

Alabama (1990) – constitutional amendment adopted by voter initiative
Alaska (1998) – initiative statute; stayed by injunction
Arizona (1988) – constitutional amendment adopted by voter initiative; ruled unconstitutional by federal district and appellate courts, decisions vacated on March 3, 1997 by the U.S. Supreme Court; then overturned as unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court on April 28, 1998; U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear English-only proponents' final appeal on January 11, 1999
Arkansas (1987) – statute
California (1986) – constitutional amendment adopted by voter initiative
Colorado (1988) – constitutional amendment adopted by voter initiative
Florida (1988) – constitutional amendment adopted by voter initiative
Georgia (1996) – statute
Hawai`i (1978) – constitutional amendment declaring the state officially bilingual – recognizing English and Native Hawaiian as official languages
Illinois (1969) – statute repealing a 1923 declaration of "American" as the official state language and adopting English
Indiana (1984) – statute
Kentucky (1984) – statute
Mississippi (1987) – statute
Missouri (1998) – statute
Montana (1995) – statute
Nebraska (1923) – constitutional amendment
New Hampshire (1995) – statute
North Carolina (1987) – statute
North Dakota (1987) – statute
South Carolina (1987) – statute
South Dakota (1995) – statute
Tennessee (1984) – statute
Virginia (1981) – statute, revised in 1996
Wyoming (1996) – statute

English Plus Resolutions

New Mexico (1989)
Oregon (1989)
Rhode Island (1992)
Washington (1989)

NOTE: Thanks to email correspondents who have alerted me to late developments in several states. If anyone else has information on pending language legislation not listed here, I would appreciate hearing from you at jwcrawford@compuserve.com.

Copyright © 2000 by James Crawford. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this page for free, noncommercial distribution, provided that credit is given and this notice is included. Requests for permission to reproduce in any other form should be emailed to jwcrawford@compuserve.com.

But before writing, please read my permissions FAQ.