Rick Hasen's post on the VRA quotes Senator Cornyn as follows:

  He said he also shares concerns about another element of the law
regarding language assistance. Jurisdictions with high numbers of
people whose native language isn't English must print bilingual
ballots. Some must also provide translators.
  "In order to be an American citizen you have to learn English. Why
would we continue to publish ballots in a language other than
English?''' That's a pretty compelling argument," Cornyn said.

Senator Cornyn is just plain wrong.  Not to mention ignorant.

     First, anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen regardless of whether he or
she ever learns to read English.  Perhaps he might remember that the precise
question in Katzenbach v. Morgan was the constitutionality of the provision
in section 4 of the original '65 Act suspending literacy tests nationwide
for individuals who'd been educated in American-flag schools where the
language of instruction isn't English.

     Second, suggesting there's a problem with having translators ignores
the fact that one place they've been used extensively is on Indian
reservations to translate ballots into unwritten Indian languages for
voters who can't read English (or can't read it well enough to cast a
ballot effectively).

     I would wager Senator Cornyn's ignorance comes from an anti-immigrant
focus.  Here, though, he's wrong for yet a third reason: the level of
English proficiency required to become a U.S. citizen is significantly
lower than the level of English proficiency a citizen might need to fill
out his or her ballot.  At the Earl Warren Institute voting rights
conference in D.C. this past spring, someone -- I think it might have been
Jocelyn Benson at Wayne State, but I might be misremembering, so someone
who was there please help me out (I'm sure it was someone on her panel) --
talked about an empirical analysis comparing the reading level necessary
for the two tasks.  Given how indecipherable I sometimes find the official
California voter information pamphlet's explanation of ballot initiatives
even though I graduated from law school, I don't doubt this for a moment:
if we only let people become citizens if they could read and understand
ballot materials, we could just get rid of the naturalization process
altogether.

    I suppose this is just another example of Cornyn shooting from the hip
-- just like his outrageous comments last year rationalizing violent
attacks on judges as somehow connected to judicial "activism" (by which I
doubt he means decisions like Boerne, Garrett, and Kimel) -- but it's a
nasty sign of the times.

Pamela S. Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law
Co-Director, Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
karlan@stanford.edu