Your article on the ruling that upheld the constitutionality of Utah's official English law, "Judge finds English-only legal, symbolic," March 6, repeats the spin of the losing side, which is that the law will have no effect. But if the law is of no value, why did the plaintiffs and their ACLU attorneys go to court to try to overturn it?
As one of the organizations that filed a court brief defending the people of Utah, who voted 2-1 in favor of official English, we were thrilled by Judge Nehring's decision. The law says simply that English is the language required for official government communications. Contrary to the fevered imagination of the plaintiffs' attorneys, the law makes no attempt to restrict the ability of government officials to communicate unofficially in languages other than English when circumstances warrant.
We are also pleased that Judge Nehring rebuffed the Utah Attorney General's Office, which had joined the plaintiffs in suggesting that part of the law was unconstitutional. The Attorney General's Office did not even bother to file a post-trial brief defending the law, despite the attorney general's clear constitutional duty to defend Utah's laws in court.
Judge Nehring's decision was a great victory for the people of Utah, common sense and the rule of law.
Executive director, ProEnglish