Annotated Bibliography

Rebekah Medford

Topic: Should the US offer bilingual ballots?

ACLU of Florida. "English Only." ACLUFL.org. May 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2009http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/download_resources/info_papers/6.cfm

In the a article by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida over the "English Only" debate, the ACLU states its reasonings behind why they oppose the "English Only" laws. They believe the laws take away the rights of individuals as well as create false stereotypes of immigrants or people speaking different languages. The material in the article is very informational, focusing not just on now but also where the idea of "English Only" derivied and just how long its been around. Viewing the counterargument, several points are brought up on why some people believe, or have believed in the past, that "English Only" would help. Following their paragraphs about the history of "English Only," ACLU has a question and answer portion. These question and answers allow the ACLU to get their views on the "English Only" debates across, focusing on topics such as: who is affected; what the consequences are; and the false ideas behind it. There are several points I would like to use from this article. Though it is against "English Only" I would liketo use the history it provides where the idea derives from in my counterargument. Using John Adams idea and words, would help me show how people believe it to be very unifying at that time. I agree that if at that time, they had made Englsih the national language, I would have been unifying. Now it would not be. Too many cultures have come here, making English Only laws now would only seperate cultures amd people in America. If English was already the National Language, then getting rid of billingual ballots would be okay but since it is not, and we are a free country, you cannot take away peoples' rights.

The Washing Post Company. " Yes on Bilingual Ballots: Encourage non-English speakers to make informed choices." The Washington Post. 10 Jul. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900553.html

This Washington Post article is pro view on Bilingual Ballots. In their article they discuss the Voting Rights Act as well as doing a deeper study of the argument. They take arguments that could be made against bilingual ballots, like: one already has to know English to take the citizenship test. The Washington Post then rebutes the arguments and states why they are not strong enough, or accurate enough to prove the counterargument. Other issues covered in the article are cost,and voting particpation. I will be able to use The Washington Post's answers towards the debate of the citizenship english to prove that this is not the same level of required when reading a ballot.