Naming rights
It seems so innocuous, the idea that registered voters should be able to read the ballot on Election Day and select the candidate of their choice.
Anyone who thinks it is that simple hasn't been paying attention to the long-running battle between Asian activists and the state's top voting official on how to conduct an election.
The Chinese Progressive Association took its fight to the State House yesterday, as a group of elderly Chinatown residents marched into the building and attempted to meet with Secretary of State William F. Galvin. There was no meeting, which could have been predicted. Galvin has refused to meet with activists on this matter for at least a year.
At issue is a proposed law that would require that ballots be translated into Chinese and Vietnamese in all elections in the city, not just municipal elections, but state and federal elections, as well. Its supporters say that without such a law, elderly Asian residents, with limited English skills, are effectively denied the right to vote. Galvin disagrees, vehemently.
The bill passed the Boston City Council in March, but requires legislative approval. The Legislature generally takes its lead on election law from Galvin, which means the bill could be sitting in the Rules Committee for a long time.
"Voting is as American as apple pie," said Councilor Sam Yoon. "This is something everyone should want to protect."
The battle dates to the city election of 2005. After the election, Asian activists said that some residents who struggled to read the ballots may have been coerced into voting for certain candidates by precinct workers.
Not long after, the city was sued by the US Justice Department, accused of failing to uphold voting rights. The suit itself was curious, considering that the Bush administration has hardly earned a reputation for zealous support of voting rights. But the City of Boston, which has suffered a string of botched elections, quickly decided to cop a plea. The city agreed to translate ballots into Chinese and Vietnamese through at least the 2008 election, after which the agreement expires.
"I think our belief was that once the city blazed the trail, the secretary would feel more comfortable and the state would follow," said Lydia Lowe, executive director of the Chinese Progressive Association. "That hasn't been the case."
Galvin's argument is over transliteration, the way English names are rendered into Chinese characters. He cites specialists who say that it is imprecise; the same names, he says, are open to more than one rendering. He also believes that transliteration is unnecessary, and he accuses advocates of deliberately confusing it with translation.
"We already have bilingual ballots," Galvin says, pointing out that ballots are printed in English and Spanish throughout the city and in Chinese and Vietnamese in some precincts. He means that everything is translated but the names of the candidates themselves.
Galvin has become a lightning rod in some circles for refusing to back certain changes in election rules. He has opposed same-day voter registration, though the Legislature may hand him a rare defeat on that measure. To his credit, he has opposed the cuckoo idea, in Lawrence, of requiring all voters to show identification at the polls, a measure clearly designed to cut down on Latino voting. But it is fair to say he tends to err on the side of caution.
Time is of the essence here. If the legislation does not pass by the end of the legislative session next month, the issue will be moot for this election. That would be swift passage for any bill and seems especially unlikely in an election year, when most contentious issues are pushed aside. Galvin can win by simply doing nothing, which appears to be the game plan.
The argument that candidates' names might be imprecisely rendered seems a poor foundation for deciding how people get to vote.
The Legislature should make a decision, one that does more than pay lip service to democracy.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
