The people of that town didn't choose. They weren't allowed to because the big government supporters in Arizona decided we need to administer tests to see if someone is good enough to run for political office in the state.


Way to be on the side of big government telling people who they can or can not vote for!


It would be good if mayors had a background in accounting too. Let's mandate they have at least an M.A.. And an MBA would be good too. How about a PhD in political science? And an IQ above 120? Maybe make sure they own property worth at least $500,000 too in their district so they have an interest in the community? No adulterers either - they have bad morals. Or unhealthy people - too dangerous, they might die.


Or, we could do what we've always done and just leave it up to the voters to figure out how much each of those things matter.

I find it hard to believe many of you have a difficult time understanding the need for someone to be able to use the language that laws/policies and every day business takes place in.


There is no official language, but let's be real here, english really is the "offical" language.

 

-----signature-----

Why? Why is it any more necessary than making sure they have enough understanding of math to understand the budget? Or enough understanding of civics to understand their job? Shouldn't we also test them on constitutional law?


That law is on the books for one reason and one reason only: lots of Arizonans are scared shitless of Spanish speakers taking over their state.


For that matter, in the city we're talking about Spanish probably *is* the everday language. It's called "San Luis." Arizonans clearly need to pass a law mandating it be renamed to "Saint Louis" instead so we can all do business in English!111

Because english is used for EVERYTHING. Signs, business transactions, contracts, policy creation, ACCOUNTANTS EXPLAINING A BUDGET TO YOU, etc...


Math, not so much.


Yuki, you of all people should know that even internationally, english is pretty much the standard for communication. Hell, science across the globe has pretty much made english the standard language.

 

-----signature-----

Accountants can't explain a budget to you in spanish?


If the voters in the election don't think speaking English is important to who they choose for mayor what gives you the right to tell them they're wrong?


All yoru arguments are arguments not to vote for the person. Not arguments about why we shouldn't be allowed to vote for them.

I've never understood the language thing. If I went and lived in Germany, Sweden, Spain, Turkey, China, Russia and on and on...I would understand that if I didn't speak their language I would be in deep shit in the long term. No one is saying you can't speak what ever language you want be we need a common language to function in unity. We could have spoken German, French or Spanish but ultimately English won out...a long time ago.

There is nothing at all wrong with expecting the government to have a default language and that its members have a *basic* working knowledge. Even the mayor of a small town is going to have to interact with the state and as I posted above, why should tax payers have to shell out the cost of an interpreter?

The requirement was not...Be able to write a literary masterpiece in English, it is *BASIC* working ability. Hardy a burden.


"If the voters in the election don't think speaking English"

Odds are the majority of them aren't here legally if they can't speak English in which case, it is irrelevant. Or do you really want to tell me that people who are legal residents of the US include anything but a handful of people who can't speak some basic level of English?

 

-----signature-----

That's what they said about Jim Crow laws too. How can someone participate in the political process if they don't have a basic understanding of our language and culture and math and...and...and...


When you're passing a law to cut a segment of the population out of the democratic political procses it's a pretty good clue you're doing something wrong.


What about blind people? The state shouldn't have to pay for brail versions of documents so let's axe them out too. And deaf people, because that makes it hard for them to communicate over the phone and that's a big part of the job and it'll cost the taxpayer more. Or people in wheelchairs. Because it will cost more to change the office to be wheelchair accessible. No matter that the taxpayer wants to elect this person - he shouldn't be able to make that choice because we in the government know better!


Issues like this show who the real libertarians are. There's not much more basic than passing laws to exclude people from the political process because they arn't good enough.

Do you have any idea of American history?


And to the extent this argument makes any sense it argues against the law. If there's no need why pass another law that forces everyone to take a test?

Arizona, cause we have just as many stupid old people as Florida!

I'd let her run. It's going to be hard for her to speak with other people in power that don't speak whatever language she is speaking. I mean I would never vote for her. I would have no idea what she stood for.

 

-----signature-----