Chicago voters are eligible to cast ballots in 12 different languages during the upcoming general election, a practice that Illinois Republican Party Chairman Bob Grogan states makes independent election monitoring more difficult. Grogan, a former DuPage County auditor, argues that the proliferation of ballot versions in languages such as Tagalog, Gujarati, and Urdu creates logistical challenges for election judges and party observers tasked with verifying ballot accuracy.
The expanded language options include English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog, Polish, Gujarati, Urdu, Ukrainian, Arabic, and Russian. While Section 203 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act mandates materials in certain languages for specific precincts, the Chicago Board of Elections includes additional translations to maintain uniformity with Cook County ordinances, ensuring equal voting opportunities across the county.
What the Left Is Saying
Election officials and proponents of the policy emphasize that the expanded language options are necessary to comply with state and county ordinances that aim to provide equal access for all residents. A spokesperson for the Chicago Board of Elections noted that the agency employs in-house staff to translate ballots and signs, and assists multilingual media ahead of elections to ensure clarity.
The Board also highlighted that voters are permitted to bring interpreters to assist in understanding and casting their ballots under certain conditions. Furthermore, election officials pointed to the composition of their workforce, noting that 810 of the 7,218 election judges assigned for the November general election are multilingual candidates. These judges include speakers of Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati, Polish, Korean, and Tagalog, which officials argue mitigates oversight concerns.
What the Right Is Saying
Illinois GOP Chairman Bob Grogan characterized the additional language options as "a solution in search of a problem" and described them as "big city virtue signaling." Grogan questioned the necessity of some translations, arguing that many immigrants who speak languages like Gujarati also speak English. He noted that English is an official language in India, challenging the premise that Gujarati speakers require translated ballots.
Grogan raised concerns about the lack of uniformity in language requirements across county lines, pointing out that while Chicago offers touchscreen ballots in 12 languages, neighboring DuPage County offers fewer options. He stated that this inconsistency could confuse voters with similar demographic backgrounds living in different jurisdictions. Grogan argued that the primary risk depends on the volume of usage, suggesting that a small number of ballots in poorly understood languages presents a minimal vulnerability, but a sudden increase in usage could elevate the risk to election integrity.
What the Numbers Show
Data provided by the Chicago Board of Elections indicates that multilingual ballots accounted for approximately 1.85% of the total votes cast during the March primary. Out of 424,564 total ballots cast citywide, 7,857 were multilingual. The usage rates varied significantly by language, with English-Polish ballots being the most frequently used non-English option at 4,474 votes. English-Chinese ballots were used 2,183 times, followed by English-Hindi (664), English-Korean (352), and English-Tagalog (100).
Less common languages saw minimal usage during the primary. English-Gujarati ballots were used nine times, English-Urdu 15 times, English-Arabic 10 times, and both English-Russian and English-Ukrainian were used 25 times each. The Board stated that Section 203 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act specifically requires materials for Spanish, Chinese, and Hindi speakers in certain precincts, while the other languages are included to align with Cook County Clerk’s office ordinances.
The Bottom Line
The debate over Chicago's 12-language ballots centers on balancing voter accessibility with election oversight. While Republicans argue that the low usage rates of certain languages and the difficulty for monolingual observers to verify them create unnecessary complexity, election officials maintain that the measures are legally and procedurally justified to ensure equal voting rights. The issue highlights ongoing tensions between local election administration practices and state-level political scrutiny of voting infrastructure. The Chicago Board of Elections did not respond to inquiries regarding the number of languages available for mail-in ballots prior to publication.