the Court noted there was “no suggestion, for example, that the company refused to hire aliens of Mexican or Spanish-speaking background while hiring those of other national origins”); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 480 n. 12, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954) (“just as persons of a different race are distinguished by color, these Spanish names provide ready identificati 1973) (finding that a tavern’s rule against speaking foreign languages amounted to racial discrimination against Mexican-Americans); Castro v. Beecher, 334 F.Supp. 930, 934 n. 2 (D.Mass.1971) (definition of class of “Spanish sumamed persons” eneom- passed those “whose primary language is Spanish”), aff'd, in part, rev’d in part, 459 F.2d 725 (1st Cir.1972); Ruiz v. Hull, 1998 WL 203081, *15-18 (Ariz. April 28, 1998) (<HOLDING>). In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct.
holding that state official english law violated the first amendment and the fourteenth amendments guarantee of equal protection under a strict scrutiny analysis because it impinges upon both the fundamental right to participate equally in the political process and the right to petition the government for redress holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of the assistance of counsel is made obligatory upon the states by the fourteenth amendment holding that the equal protection and due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments do not provide a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of money by the government holding that neither the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment nor article i  2 of the constitution guarantee against errors in the administration of an election holding that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment require the appointment of counsel on a petition for discretionary review to a state supreme court