State supreme court takes legal show on road

Justices sat en banc during their yearly visit to the university, which allows law students to witness live Supreme Court proceedings. En banc means all seven justices met together to hear arguments, something that rarely happens outside of their Phoenix base.

"With all of the justice's questions you have to be quick on your toes," said Matt Harrison, a first-year law student. All first year students were assigned to witness at least one of the arguments.

Harrison said he enjoyed getting a glimpse of what he would be doing after graduation.

"It's a nice change from being in class all day," he added.

Second year law student Michele Alsentzer said she liked the idea that the justices visited campus for the student's benefit.

"It's nice to include Tucson in the process," she added.

First year law student Laura McKinney said getting up in front of the justices appeared to be a little intimidating but exciting.

In addition to the English-only case, UA students in attendance got to watch a Tucson man's death sentence appeal stemming from a 1996 murder conviction. Justices also heard concerns about whether a 265-page complaint violates the state's requirement of a "short and plain" plaintiff statement.

The English-only case began in 1988, when voters adopted Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution, making English the official language of the state. The amendment has sparked several legal actions during the past decade.

The law requires all state officials to use English during the performance of government business and that all state documents be written in English

Plaintiffs have raised questions surrounding the ambiguous wording of the law's section 3, which states the provision only applies to "official acts" and "does not prohibit the use of language other than English that are reasonably necessary to facilitate the day-to-day operation of government."

Attorney Stephen G. Montoya, representing former state Sen. Armando Ruiz and others who filled action against the state called the law "profoundly racist" contending that it zeroed in on minorities.

"This piece of legislation puts a straightjacket on minorities," Montoya said. He said the law violates the U.S. Constitution's first amendment freedom of speech statement and the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

Montoya said his clients are not opposed to English being the primary language but to the proscriptions of the law.

Attorney James Henderson, representing Arizonans for Official English, argued that the law was designed to provide a standard language for formal government actions and documents.

"It only applies to official business, not personal discussion," Henderson said.

Assistant Attorney General Paula S. Bickett said Article 28 does not restrict state employee's speech as citizens, but in official modes of office.

The Supreme Court's reaction was mixed.

Justice Stanley G. Feldman questioned the need of the law if it was only intended to enforce the use of English for officials functions.

"Why do we have to have this at all?" he asked. Adding that in his 60 years he had not been part of a government proceeding that was not conducted in English.

Justice Frederick J. Martone said similar English law in other states have been written in one to two sentences and suggested the clarifications may be not needed.

Bickett said the 14 paragraphs of the law, which includes the special provisions, were added for clarification rather than exceptions.

Justice Feldman argued the ambiguous language of the law could leave questions to what is deemed as reasonably necessary for day-to-day operations.