In this study, I seek to answer the question of why some states choose to declare English the official state language while others do not. Using an event history model, I show that both the proportion of a state's population that is foreign-born and whether the state allows for direct initiatives interact to influence the adoption of language laws. Specifically, states with many immigrants and no initiatives have almost no chance of declaring English the official language while a similar state with direct initiatives is more likely to do so. Implications for ethnic politics, direct democracy, and the future of language policy are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barone, Michael, et al. 1982. The Almanac of American Politics: 1982. New York: E.P Dutton.
2.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Bradford Jones. 1997. ‘Time is of the Essence: Event History Models in Political Science.’American Journal of Political Science141: 1414-1461.
3.
Citrin, Jack, Beth Reingold, and Donald Green. 1990. ‘American Identity and the Politics of Ethnic Change.’Journal of Politics52: 1124-1154.
4.
Citrin, Jack, Beth Reingold, Evelyn Walters, and Donald Green. 1990. ‘The 'Official-English' Movement and the Symbolic Politics of Language in the United States.’Western Political Quarterly43: 536-559.
5.
Citrin, Jack, Donald Green, Christopher Muste, and Cara Wong. 1997. ‘Public Opinion Toward Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations.’Journal of Politics59: 858-881.
6.
Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, 3rd edition. 1994. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly
7.
Council of State Governments. 1998. The Book of the States, vol. 32. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments.
8.
Erikson, Robert S., Gerald C. Wright, and John P McIver. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Frendreis, John, and Raymond Tatalovich. 1997. ‘Who Supports English-Only Laws? Evidence from the 1992 National Election Study.’Social Science Quarterly78: 354-368.
10.
Gamble, Barbara. 1997. ‘Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.’American Journal of Political Science41: 245-269.
11.
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1996. ‘Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.’AmericanJournal of Political Science40: 99-128.
12.
Glover, Mike. 1999. ‘House Rejects English as Official Language.’Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 21, 1999.
13.
Green, Stephen. 1996. ‘House Votes to Make English the Official Language.’San-Diego Union Tribune, August 2, 1996, p. A1-A1.
14.
Hood, M. V III, and Irwin Morris. 1997. ‘Amigo o Enemigo?: Context, Attitudes, and Anglo Public Opinion Toward Immigration.’Social Science Quarterly78: 309-323.
15.
Tatalovich, Raymond. 1995. Nativism Reborn? The Official English Language Movement and the American States. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky
16.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1998. Local area unemployment statistics at http://www.bls.gov.
17.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. ‘The Foreign-Born Population: 1996.’Current Population Reports, March, pp. 20-494.
18.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997, 117th ed. Washington, DC.
19.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1990, 110th ed. Washington, DC.
20.
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1999. Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service: 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
