When Bilingual Ballot Designs Promote or Undermine Inclusivity: Evidence from Three Studies

Abstract Do bilingual ballot designs promote inclusivity? While ethnic politics scholars have argued about the importance of accommodating minorities, there has been little attention paid to one specific institution: the ballot. Likewise, while we know ballot designs are important, the empirical focus has strictly been on monolingual ballots. In this paper, we identify three designs: (1) single: monolingual ballots; (2) separated: one bilingual ballot with two columns, with one language per column; and (3) stacked: one bilingual ballot with one column, with languages collated for each race. We argue that attitudes are most inclusive when ballots are stacked—that is, there are multiple languages sharing the same space. However, this is only the case when language is not a politicized issue. When it is, attitudes in fact become exclusive. To test, we employ three studies that vary on their extent of language politicization: (1) no politicization—the use of an indigenous language and an immigrant language next to Chinese in Taiwan; (2) politicization of the majority language—the use of Spanish alongside English in Texas; and (3) politicization of a minority language—the use of Russian and English in the Republic of Georgia. The results are robust and consistent with our theoretical expectations. Given that the foundation of democracy rests on citizens being able to exercise their voice, it is imperative that we accommodate minority languages effectively on the ballot.