Balanced protections
Citizens vs. Alabama

Alabama's legal interests must be protected, but so must all of Alabama citizens

Huntsville Times Editorial 

Alabama doesn't have the resources to fight every individual or entity that differs with the state's rules and regulations. About this, Attorney General Bill Pryor is absolutely right.

''We shouldn't be blindsided by these kind of lawsuits,'' Pryor told The Times last week.

The floodgates of nuisance litigation must be kept closed.

That's the upside of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last week that private individuals can't sue a state when they believe its rules have the effect of discriminating against them.
The downside is that the effects of discrimination are damaging, even if unintended or incidental, which is what Pryor and the state claimed in the Martha Sandoval case. The Mexican immigrant sued the state because of its English-only drivers' license test.

Her argument was that the test was discriminatory and consequently illegal because the department receives federal funds. Pryor's response walked a thin line: Congress doesn't allow citizens to sue the state in these cases and doesn't prohibit ''a discriminatory effect.''

But a ''discriminatory effect'' still discriminates, placing one citizen or group at a disadvantage. In this case, the effect is more glaring because even illiterate English-speaking citizens can get a drivers' license if they can pass an oral test.

Why, then, should literate, non-English-speaking citizens be deprived of the same opportunity?

The ominous effect is to create a state divided by language, at a time when Alabama is seeing an influx of non-English-speaking immigrants.

Alabama must be protected, but not at the expense of some of its more vulnerable citizens. Too bad Pryor and the court couldn't see that too. 

© The Huntsville Times.

Help us protect our freedoms from tyrants by supporting C.R.C.R.

[Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Next]---[Support CRCR]