A group of Navajo speakers convened in Flagstaff to tackle the complex task of translating Arizona’s ballot propositions. Engaged and focused, they spent hours deliberating on how to accurately describe fentanyl, a term fraught with implications in both English and Navajo.

“Not azee’,” one participant proposed, clarifying that “azee’” means medicine and implies healing. This nuanced distinction underscored the challenges of translating legal terms. The group’s goal was not merely to translate but to ensure that the Navajo-speaking voters would fully understand the content of the propositions. Correct wording was critical, especially given the implications for public health and safety.

This effort was part of translating a total of 13 propositions for the upcoming November ballot. The translations aim to assist Navajo voters who may not be proficient in English, particularly in a context where historical oral traditions complicate written forms of communication. The endeavor has attracted scrutiny, especially regarding how well these translations convey crucial information on contested issues like abortion rights.

The federal Voting Rights Act mandates that regions with significant non-English-speaking populations provide necessary translations during elections. Arizona, with substantial populations of Native speakers, including Navajo, is among those required to comply. Seven counties in Arizona must meet these guidelines, translating into multiple Native languages, such as Hopi and Apache. Meetings to facilitate these translations often occur behind closed doors, limiting public oversight, as seen in the recent sessions at the Coconino County Elections Center.

Navajo-speaking voters represent a significant demographic in Arizona, with around 71,000 eligible individuals, approximately 10% of whom are not fluent in English. Their voting power was notably influential in past elections, particularly the 2020 presidential contest. As such, accurate translations of ballot measures could determine their stance on pivotal issues this fall.

Yet, there are concerns around the translations’ effectiveness. A settlement from 2019 mandates the use of certified Navajo translators for propositions and detailed descriptions meant for voters, but awareness and clarity regarding the additional yes/no information remains uncertain. Only the initial text on the ballot was discussed during the meetings, raising worries about voters having incomplete understandings of the propositions.

Discussions during the translation sessions revealed the sensitivity required when dealing with culturally contentious topics. For instance, the language surrounding Proposition 139, which ensures abortion rights, necessitated careful consideration, as Navajo culture traditionally holds anti-abortion views. Some translators opted to phrase sensitive terms in a manner that could potentially mislead, emphasizing the importance of accurate representation in translations.

As county officials debated translations for seemingly straightforward terms, the conversation highlighted the intricate nature of adapting English concepts into Navajo. Misinterpretations could lead to misunderstandings at the polls, which is particularly concerning given the legal obligations outlined under Section 203. Activists and experts have voiced criticism over perceived inadequacies in current practices, emphasizing the need for more comprehensive language support.

Even after previous legal settlements aimed at improving translation services for Native voters, advocates assert that significant gaps remain. Continuous struggles, such as the lack of full translations provided for all election materials, have led to calls for legislative reforms to ensure adequate representation for Indigenous voters. The aim would be to make the voting process genuinely accessible and comprehensible for all.

With the November elections approaching, the pressure mounts to finalize accurate translations for ballot propositions while addressing these longstanding issues. The translation efforts not only reflect the logistical challenges of servicing a multilingual electorate but also the vital role language plays in empowering communities to engage with the democratic process.