English Not Necessary?

How politically correct has the United Sates become?  I think there is no end to the stupidity of political correctness here, where concern  that any rule or standard that might "offend" someone's feelings is reason to invalidate the rule or standard.  The latest nonsensical example is in the state of New Mexico. According to a constitutional provision of the state, New Mexico citizens who don't speak English have the right to serve on juries, even if they are non-English speakers. New Mexico is half Hispanic speaking today and many of those Hispanics speak no English at all.  According to a 19th century New Mexican constitutional  provision of the New Mexico constitution, "A citizen's right to vote, hold office or serve on a jury cannot be restricted "on account of religion, race, language or color, or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages".

In the 1800's or even early 1900's this might have made sense, since the population then was sparse and more Spanish speaking than English speaking. New Mexico was part of Mexico before becoming part of the United States in the mid-19th Century, and many residents spoke only Spanish at the time. The state's constitution drafted for statehood gave protections for Spanish speakers. But courts in New Mexico have consistently upheld that provision and not allowed it to be changed.. Hence if you are arrested in New Mexico you might be placed in a trial where one or more of the jurors deciding your case does not speak or understand the English language your defense attorney uses to try to prove your innocence.

The most recent court ruling about the matter says that if a juror is illiterate in English a trial should be delayed a reasonable time in order to secure an interpreter for a juror. Hmmmm  Can someone listening through an interpreter really full y understand all the information and nuances of the case?  In selecting jurors in New Mexico, the individual simply fills out a questionnaire that asks "yes" or "no" to fluency in English, and that alone is supposed to be the proof of fluency. I suspect many jurors there are not fluent enough to understand the forms much less the legal arguments the lawyers present in a case. In those instances the accused is surely not truly receiving a fair trial.

The United Sates government has a rule for all prospective citizens (one must be a citizen to serve on a jury) that makes those applying for citizenship prove fluency in English. Yet, this is rarely enforced, leaving us with a nation with some citizens who can not understand English well enough to competently serve on a jury. But the U.S. constitution also  guarantees a trial by a jury of "peers"? That means an English speaking American be judged by a jury whose members speak the same language.  How can it be a jury of peers if a juror does not speak the same language as the accused?

Anyone who is a juror and is not fluent in understanding English can not have followed the complexities of a court case, and anyone who can not speak English could not communicate with other jurors during deliberations. Communications between jurors is critical, especially in criminal cases when a unanimous decision is required for a guilty verdict. If a juror cannot understand well what is said during a trial, how can they vote in a thoughtful, proper manner?

"Citizens who don't speak English" should be an oxymoron, but we have decided to forgo having any standards for the sake of not "offending" anyone. It's sad.