Chicago’s 12-Language Ballot System Is Solving a Problem That Doesn’t Exist

Chicago voters can now cast ballots in twelve different languages, and if you think that sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare wrapped in good intentions, you’re not alone. Illinois Republican Party Chairman Bob Grogan is raising the alarm that this linguistic expansion is making an already complex election system virtually impossible to monitor effectively.

The list reads like a United Nations roll call. English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog, Polish, Gujarati, Urdu, Ukrainian, Arabic, and Russian. The Chicago Board of Elections justifies this multilingual extravaganza by citing Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates Spanish, Chinese, and Hindi in certain precincts. Fair enough. But the other nine languages? Those exist to maintain uniformity with Cook County’s ordinances, ensuring equal voting opportunities across the county.

Here’s where the virtue signaling becomes impossible to ignore. During the March primary, exactly nine people used English-Gujarati ballots. Nine. Meanwhile, fifteen voters needed English-Urdu, ten requested English-Arabic, and twenty-five each used English-Russian and English-Ukrainian. Grogan, who served as DuPage County auditor for twelve years, points out what should be obvious to anyone paying attention. “It’s a solution in search of a problem,” he says. “It’s big city virtue signaling.”

The numbers tell a story that election officials don’t want to admit. Some language options saw more substantial use, sure. English-Polish ballots accounted for 4,474 votes, English-Chinese reached 2,183, and English-Hindi hit 664. But when you’re printing ballots and training election judges to handle twelve different versions, you’re creating complexity that serves political optics more than actual voters.

Grogan makes another point that cuts through the performative inclusivity. He has, in his own words, “a fair number of Gujarati friends,” and everyone in their family speaks English. Gujarati originates from India, where English serves as an official language. You don’t need a degree in linguistics to understand that many immigrants from these language groups also speak English, especially those engaged enough in civic life to register and vote.

The practical implications extend beyond feel-good diversity metrics. Election judges and party observers tasked with ensuring voters receive accurate ballots now face a dizzying array of versions to track. When you’re trying to maintain election integrity, adding layers of complexity doesn’t help. It hinders. Every additional language version creates another opportunity for confusion, error, or worse.

This connects directly to broader concerns about election security that conservatives have been hammering for years. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli recently highlighted how Los Angeles County election officials acknowledge they lack resources to verify citizenship status of registered voters. When you can’t verify who should vote and you’re simultaneously making the voting process harder to oversee, you’re not strengthening democracy. You’re weakening it.

The inconsistency across county lines raises questions too. Chicago offers touchscreen ballots in twelve languages while nearby DuPage County provides fewer options. Grogan wonders why language requirements change so dramatically when you cross arbitrary boundaries. “You can have a Gujarati population in Peoria,” he notes. Shouldn’t there be more uniformity?

Nobody’s arguing against helping voters who genuinely need language assistance. That’s what the Voting Rights Act addresses, and those provisions make sense. But when election boards start adding languages that serve handfuls of voters while making independent monitoring nearly impossible, they’re prioritizing symbolism over substance.

The Cook County ordinance driving this expansion sounds reasonable until you examine the results. Equal voting opportunities don’t require printing ballots in languages used by fewer people than you can count on your fingers. They require clear processes, verifiable systems, and transparent oversight. Adding complexity for its own sake, or worse, for political cover, achieves the opposite.

Election integrity isn’t just about who votes. It’s about whether we can trust the entire process from registration through counting. Every unnecessary complication makes that trust harder to maintain. When officials acknowledge they’re adding languages to match county ordinances rather than actual voter need, they’re admitting the quiet part out loud. This isn’t about access. It’s about appearances.

The conservative position here isn’t controversial or extreme. It’s common sense. Make elections accessible to legitimate voters. Make them transparent enough that observers can verify accuracy. Don’t create theatrical displays of inclusion that sacrifice oversight in the name of diversity points. Chicago’s twelve-language ballot system fails that basic test.

Related: Trump Says One Warship Off Cuba’s Coast Could End Communist Rule for Good