Bill would require English as official language in Ohio

By Marc Kovac

The bill does have exemptions built in to accommodate other languages.

COLUMBUS — Public agencies would be required to conduct business and issue official records in English only, under a bill introduced at the Statehouse.

Rep. Robert P. Mecklenborg, a Republican from the Cincinnati area, said House Bill 477 is needed to “promote the similarities that unite us” and would “promote economic success and result in more productive and involved citizens when our legal immigrants know and understand the English language.”

Mecklenborg provided sponsor testimony Thursday before the Ohio House’s State Government and Elections Committee.

HB 477 would require English to be used during meetings involving public bodies, including state, county, township, city and school district-related boards, commissions and committees. All policies issued, records created or other action also would have to be in English.

The legislation does include a number of exemptions in which other languages could be used, including instances involving public health, safety and welfare, foreign language instruction or tourism promotion.

The bill also includes provisions prohibiting public agencies from denying employment to individuals solely because they lack foreign language skills and requires those groups to break out budget line items for funds dedicated to language translation.

“We are obviously a nation of immigrants, and Ohio remains a welcoming state to those who wish to become legal citizens,” Mecklenborg said.

“The passage of this bill will only ensure that the state of Ohio has decided that, in order for its actions, laws and business activities to be considered authoritative and legal, they must be communicated in the English language. This legislation does not infringe on each Ohioans’ right to choose their primary language for personal communication.”

Rep. Dan Stewart, a Democrat from Columbus who serves on the House committee considering the bill, asked about the impetus behind the legislation.

“I’m not sure exactly why we need to do this,” he said.

Mecklenborg replied that 30 others states already have taken similar action, and nine others are considering comparable legislation.

“Demographics, as we know, are changing,” he said.

“I believe this is a good time for Ohio to address this.”

mkovac@dixcom.com