Every year in California thousands of parents choose names such as José, Andrés and Sofía for their children, often honoring the memory of a deceased grandmother, aunt or sibling. On the state-issued birth certificates, though, those names will be spelled incorrectly.



California, like several other states, prohibits the use of diacritical marks or accents on official documents. That means no tilde (~), no accent grave (`), no umlaut (¨) and certainly no cedilla (¸).

Although more than a third of the state population is Hispanic, and accents are used in the names of state parks and landmarks, the state bars their use on birth records.

Yet, names that are properly written with accents are some of the most popular in the state. In 2013 alone, according to the Social Security Administration, 1,340 boys named José were born in California. Names written with accents are peppered throughout the top 100 list of California baby names.

Recently there has been a call to update what many see as antiquated rules. Last year, the state assembly took up a bill that would have allowed diacritical marks, but it stalled out when a price tag was attached.

“To me it’s absurd,” said Nancy Skinner, the former assembly member who proposed the bill in 2014. “It should have not been an issue at all.”

While the use of some squiggly lines, dots and diagonal hashes above letters may not seem like the most pressing problem in a state facing droughts and deficits, at least one legal scholar believes the ban on accents is unconstitutional, and community and civil rights organizations want the ban lifted out of respect for equality and cultural differences.

“For a lot of the folks we represent this is part of our heritage and an important issue,” said Omar Gomez, director of programs and public policy at the Council of Mexican Federations, the largest Latino organization in the state.

“They are passing on the names of parents and grandparents, and they are written a certain way with accents. The reality is that the names are wrong without the accents. They aren’t just there for decoration or style, they mean something. They tell the reader how to pronounce the name or word correctly. It can change the meaning of words. It matters.”

A hodgepodge of laws

The California handbook is clear. The birth certificate must be filled out “using the 26 alphabetical letters of the English language”. The handbook, issued by the department of health’s office of vital records, clarifies that hyphens and apostrophes are allowed while accents are termed “unacceptable”.



Therefore, while O’Connor is alright, Ramón is not.

States handle birth certificates, so while there are federal rules there are also 50 sets of state stipulations as well.

“The United States is certainly not the most restrictive country, and the laws vary widely from nation to nation and state to state” said Carlton Larson, a law professor at UC Davis who published a 2011 paper on the topic.

In Portugal, for example, names are approved by the government and those that are not considered “authentic” to the culture are purged. Recently, a judge in France, where the welfare of the child is considered, nixed the name “Nutella” and renamed the infant girl simply “Ella”. In Canada and Mexico accents are welcomed, but in Australia strictly forbidden.

In the US, the federal government does not use accents and you will not find them on passports or social security cards. Many states have length restrictions in addition to rules against ideograms, numerals and pictograms to prevent someone from naming their child with an emoticon or some other symbol. States like Texas, Kansas and Massachusetts have similar restrictions to California, while others, like Maryland, Delaware, Alaska and Illinois, accept all names.

California’s department of public health argues that the California Constitution and state health code mandate the ban on diacritical marks. The constitution declares English the official language and the state health code requires English for official records and documents they produce, department of health spokesman Matt Conens said in an email. The law would have to change to allow them to accept diacritical marks, he said.

“Banning accents on baby names ... I think that’s a grossly broad interpretation of the (state) law,” Larson said.

Furthermore, according to Larson, under freedom of speech and due process grounds, laws banning diacritical marks would likely fall if challenged in court.

“I feel bans on diacritical marks are unconstitutional,” Larson said. “Naming a child is a right that traditionally and historically has fallen to parents, and it’s a very personal and meaningful decision that the government should not be able to restrict unfairly.”

Time for change?

Ever since Larson first published his paper on naming laws in 2011, he has received a handful of emails and calls from frustrated parents each year asking if there is any remedy.

“There are tons of people affected, and it’s not just with Spanish names, it can be Portuguese, French, Romanian … a lot of languages use diacritical marks,” he said.

Two years ago Martin Thibodeau, a French Canadian who has lived in California for a decade, chose to name his new daughter after his grandmother. When the birth certificate arrived, he realized an accent was omitted.

“I find it bizarre with modern keyboards and the ability to use diacritical marks that the state can’t do this,” Thibodeau said. “I just couldn’t understand why they couldn’t do it. Why would the state take such a strong stance against diacritical marks when there is such a huge Hispanic population?”

Thibodeau and other frustrated parents were not the only ones to notice some of the peculiarities in the state’s position.

“Why are we properly depicting Irish names with the apostrophe, but not Spanish names?” asked Nancy Skinner, the lawmaker who attempted to change the rule.

The ACLU of California, shared Skinner’s view and endorsed the bill. “We recognize accents and diacritical marks in the names of our legislators, in state parks, on street signs and other places,” said Kevin Baker, legislative director of ACLU of California. “Our feeling is it’s appropriate to recognize something as fundamental to identity as one’s name.”

The Office of Vital Records has raised concerns that a change could lead to increased identity theft, difficulty matching old records with new ones and compatibility issues with the Social Security Administration and other federal departments. Proponents of a change, however, say the technology exists for those databases to communicate.

Administrative convenience has not proven to be a stout defense. In 1996 a New Jersey court ruled in favor of a woman who, despite state objections, wanted a first name but no last name. The judge remarked, “computers and record keepers ... need not control individual liberties”.

As Skinner’s bill progressed through the assembly it came time for different agencies to chime in with estimates on the cost of updating their systems. The final tally: $10m. “Coming out of the recession, when an agency or department put the cost on a bill that was their way of trying to prevent action from being taken,” Skinner said. “We’ve pushed through some of that, but there is still resistance. I questioned how much it would really cost.”

Skinner, who is planning a run for state senate, said she would consider bringing the bill back if she gets another turn in the legislature.



Omar Gomez of the Council of Mexican Federations, whose given first name is José, was surprised that a state such as California failed to address the ban.

“We’ve passed laws to help protect immigrants, laws granting driver’s licenses for immigrants, and a healthcare for all bill,” he said. “Yet, somehow something that would be minimal impact but is very important to many people has not passed.”