BILL NUMBER: AB 2302 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 31, 2006
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 30, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 24, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 22, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 9, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 7, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 21, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 26, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 29, 2006
INTRODUCED BY Committee on Judiciary (Jones (Chair), Evans, Laird,
Levine, Lieber, and Montanez)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Arambula, Baca, Bass, Berg,
Bermudez, Calderon, Chan, Chu, Coto, De La Torre, Frommer, Goldberg,
Shirley Horton, Karnette, Koretz, Lieu, Liu, Nakanishi, Nation,
Oropeza, Parra, Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Saldana, Salinas, Torrico, and
Vargas)
(Principal coauthors: Senators Cedillo, Ducheny, Escutia, Ortiz,
and Speier)
FEBRUARY 22, 2006
An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 755 of the Evidence Code,
relating to evidence.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2302, Committee on Judiciary Evidence: court interpreters.
Existing law requires that in any action or proceeding pursuant to
specified provisions of law, an interpreter be provided by the court
for a party who is incapable of understanding or speaking the
English language to interpret the proceedings in a language that the
party understands and to assist communication between the party and
his or her attorney.
This bill, operative on July 1, 2007, would revise the above
provision to specify that in any civil action or proceeding,
including, but not limited to, any family court proceeding, any small
claims court proceeding, any proceeding to determine the mental
competency of a person, or any court-ordered or court-provided
alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration,
with specified exceptions, in which a party does not proficiently
speak or understand the English language, an interpreter is required
to be present to interpret the proceedings, as specified. The bill
would also require a court to provide the interpreter, unless a party
has notified the court that he or she has made arrangements for a
private interpreter.
Existing law requires the fees of interpreters to be paid by the
litigants in civil cases, as directed by the court, but further
requires the fees of an interpreter to be waived for a party who
needs an interpreter and appears in forma pauperis.
This bill, operative on July 1, 2007, would revise that provision
to specify that the fees of interpreters shall be paid by the court.
The bill would authorize the court, if a party whose fees have been
waived prevails in the action, to assess the amount of waived fees
against that party in a manner the court believes is compatible with
the party's financial ability, or assess those fees to another party,
as specified. The bill would additionally establish the order of
precedence in which interpreters would be assigned in cases if
sufficient funds are not allocated in the annual Budget Act or are
not otherwise provided to meet the needs for court interpreters in
all civil actions and proceedings, or if a sufficient number of
interpreters is not available, as specified.
This bill would also require the Judicial Council to conduct a
study of the need for court interpreters in civil proceedings and the
extent to which the need for interpreters is being met, and to
report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature by March 1,
2009, and every 2 years thereafter. The bill would also make related
changes to that provision of law and would set forth findings and
declarations of the Legislature.
This bill would further require the Judicial Council to adopt
training guidelines so that each trial court, in consultation with
the exclusive representative of interpreters, ensures that court
interpreters receive specified training. The bill would also specify
funding for the provision of court interpreter services for the
2007-08 fiscal year.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) California is emblematic of the American dream, a place of
stunning natural beauty, a seat of international commerce, and a land
of unparalleled opportunity. As a result, California is the most
populous and demographically diverse state in the nation, a meeting
place of cultures, ethnicities, and ideas unlike any other in the
world. Of the state's 34 million people, about 26 percent (roughly
8.8 million people) are foreign born. Californians speak more than
220 languages, and 40 percent of the state's population speaks a
language other than English in the home. This extraordinary diversity
is among the state's greatest assets and has helped make California
an international leader in business, the arts, entertainment,
engineering, medicine, and other fields. The state's diversity also
poses unique challenges for the delivery of government services,
particularly for the courts.
(b) For Californians not proficient in English, the prospect of
navigating the legal system is daunting, especially for the growing
number of parties who do not have access to legal services and
therefore have no choice but to represent themselves in court, which
is a virtually impossible task for people who are unable to
understand the proceedings. Nearly seven million Californians cannot
access the courts without significant language assistance, cannot
understand pleadings, forms, or other legal documents, cannot
communicate with clerks or court staff and cannot understand or
participate meaningfully in court proceedings, much less effectively
present their cases without a qualified interpreter. People with
limited English proficiency are also often members of groups whose
cultural traits or economic circumstances make them more likely to be
subjected to legal problems, in part because perpetrators recognize
their victims' limited ability to access judicial protection.
(c) The Legislature has previously recognized that the number of
non-English speaking persons in California is increasing, and
recognized the need to provide equal justice under the law to all
California residents and to provide for their special needs in their
relations with the judicial and administrative law system. The
Legislature has likewise recognized that the effective maintenance of
a democratic society depends on the right and ability of its
residents to communicate with their government and the right and
ability of the government to communicate with them.
(d) Inadequate resources to assist litigants with limited English
proficiency affect the court's ability to function properly, causing
delays in proceedings for all court users, inappropriate defaults,
and faulty interpretation that can ultimately subvert justice. Our
judicial system relies on the adversarial process in which neutral
arbiters decide disputes based upon competing presentations of facts
and law. Conducting court proceedings when one party is incapable of
fully participating significantly impairs the quality and efficiency
of the process and its results, including compliance with court
orders. The courts have made significant efforts to assist litigants
with limited English proficiency, including steps to increase the
number of certified and registered interpreters and to provide
interpreters in civil cases, if resources are available.
Nevertheless, court proceedings are required to be conducted in
English, and most crucial court forms and documents are available
only in English, while the number of skilled interpreters has
actually declined over the past decade and the number of persons
requiring interpreter services has increased. As a result, a
qualified interpreter is not provided in most civil proceedings.
(e) The inability to respond to the language needs of parties in
court impairs trust and confidence in the judicial system and
undermines efforts to secure justice for all. The authority of the
courts depends on public perceptions of fairness and accessibility.
Any significant erosion of public trust and confidence in the
fairness of judicial outcomes threatens the future legitimacy of the
legal system. By excluding a large segment of the population from
participation in an institution that shapes and reflects our values,
we threaten the integrity of the judicial process. Resentment
fostered by the inability to access the benefits of the court system
can ultimately impair enforcement of judicial decrees and attenuate
the rule of law.
(f) Reliance on untrained interpreters, such as family members or
children, can lead to faulty translations and threaten the court's
ability to ensure justice. Court interpretation is extremely
difficult and takes a rare combination of skills, experience, and
training. Apart from the possibility of fraud, unqualified
interpreters often fail to accurately and comprehensively convey
questions and distort testimony by omitting or adding information, or
by stylistically altering the tone and intent of the speaker,
thereby preventing courts from hearing the testimony properly. These
problems compromise the factfinding process and can result in genuine
injustice.
(g) An overwhelming number of Californians believe that
interpreters should be made available to assist non-English speakers
in all court proceedings, and that interpreters should be provided
free of charge to low-income non-English speakers.
(h) California law currently mandates appointment of an
interpreter for all witnesses in civil cases, and for parties with
hearing impairments. In addition, California statutes mandate the
appointment of an interpreter in adjudicative proceedings before
state agencies, boards, and commissions at no charge to the parties
whenever a party or the party's witness does not proficiently speak
or understand English. Other states by contrast provide both
witnesses and parties with a right to a court-appointed interpreter
in all civil matters at no cost to the party.
SEC. 2. Section 755 of the Evidence Code is amended to read:
755. (a) In any action or proceeding under Division 10
(commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code, and in any action
or proceeding under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3 (commencing
with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code) or for
dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties
in which a protective order has been granted or is being sought
pursuant to Section 6221 of the Family Code, in which a party does
not proficiently speak or understand the English language, and that
party is present, an interpreter, as provided in this section, shall
be present to interpret the proceedings in a language that the party
understands, and to assist communication between the party and his or
her attorney. Notwithstanding this requirement, a court may issue an
ex parte order pursuant to Sections 2045 and 7710 of, and Article 1
(commencing with Section 6320) of Chapter 2 of Part 4 of Division 10
of the Family Code, without the presence of an interpreter. The
interpreter selected shall be certified pursuant to Article 4
(commencing with Section 68560) of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the
Government Code, unless the court in its discretion appoints an
interpreter who is not certified.
(b) The fees of interpreters utilized under this section shall be
paid as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 68092 of the
Government Code. However, the fees of an interpreter shall be waived
for a party who needs an interpreter and appears in forma pauperis
pursuant to Section 68511.3 of the Government Code. The Judicial
Council shall amend subdivision (i) of California Rule of Court 985
and revise its forms accordingly by July 1, 1996.
(c) In any civil action in which an interpreter is required under
this section, the court shall not commence proceedings until the
appointed interpreter is present and situated near the party and his
or her attorney. However, this section shall not prohibit the court
from doing any of the following:
(1) Issuing an order when the necessity for the order outweighs
the necessity for an interpreter.
(2) Extending the duration of a previously issued temporary order
if an interpreter is not readily available.
(3) Issuing a permanent order where a party who requires an
interpreter fails to make appropriate arrangements for an interpreter
after receiving proper notice of the hearing with information about
obtaining an interpreter.
(d) This section does not prohibit the presence of any other
person to assist a party.
(e) A local public entity may, and the Judicial Council shall,
apply to the appropriate state agency that receives federal funds
authorized pursuant to the federal Violence Against Women Act (P.L.
103-322) for these federal funds or for funds from sources other than
the state to implement this section. A local public entity and the
Judicial Council shall comply with the requirements of this section
only to the extent that any of these funds are made available.
(f) The Judicial Council shall draft rules and modify forms
necessary to implement this section, including those for the petition
for a temporary restraining order and related forms, to inform both
parties of their right to an interpreter pursuant to this section.
(g) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2007,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before July 1, 2007, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3. Section 755 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:
755. (a) In any civil action or proceeding, including, but not
limited to, any family court proceeding, any proceeding to determine
the mental competency of a person, or any court-ordered or
court-provided alternative dispute resolution, including mediation
and arbitration, in which a party does not proficiently speak or
understand the English language, and that party is present, an
interpreter, as provided in this section, shall be present to
interpret the proceedings in a language that the party understands,
and to assist communication between the party and his or her
attorney. This section does not apply to any arbitration ordered by
the court under Title 9 (commencing with Section 1280), Title 9.1
(commencing with Section 1295), Title 9.2 (commencing with Section
1296), Title 9.3 (commencing with Section 1297.11), Title 9.3
(commencing with Section 1298) or Title 9.5 (commencing with Section
1299), of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding this
requirement, a court may issue an ex parte order pursuant to
Sections 2045 and 7710 of, and Article 1 (commencing with Section
6320) of Chapter 2 of Part 4 of Division 10 of, the Family Code,
without the presence of an interpreter. Unless a party has notified
the court that he or she has made arrangements for a private
interpreter, the court shall provide the interpreter. The interpreter
shall be certified pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section
68560) of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Government Code, except as
provided in subdivision (c) of Section 68561 of the Government Code.
(b) (1) The fees of interpreters utilized under this section shall
be paid by the court.
(2) If a party whose fees have been waived prevails in the action
or proceeding or obtains a monetary settlement of his or her claims,
the court may assess the amount of the waived fees either against
that party in any manner the court believes is compatible with the
party's financial ability, or assess those fees to another party
against whom the party whose fees and costs have been waived would
have been entitled to recover those fees had they not been waived,
and order the other party to pay that sum to the court or to the
clerk and serving and levying officers respectively or order the
amount of the waived fees added to the judgment and so identified by
the clerk.
(3) If sufficient funds are not allocated in the annual Budget Act
or are not otherwise provided to meet the needs for court
interpreters in all civil actions and proceedings, or if after
diligent search a sufficient number of interpreters is not available
for all civil actions and proceedings, interpreters shall be assigned
in the following order of priority, subject to any rules that the
Judicial Council may adopt to implement the priority guidelines in
this section so as to ensure that court interpreters are provided in
civil matters consistently with sound and efficient court
administration and prudent personnel practices:
(A) Parties appearing in forma pauperis or whom the court
otherwise determines are financially unable to pay the cost of an
interpreter in the following order of precedence by case type:
(i) Actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure or under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200)
of the Family Code.
(ii) Actions and proceedings under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part
3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code)
and actions and proceedings under Part 4 (commencing with Section
7800) of Division 12 of the Family Code.
(iii) Actions and proceedings for dissolution or nullity of
marriage or legal separation of the parties in which a protective
order has been granted or is being sought pursuant to Section 6221 of
the Family Code or a protective order has been granted or is being
sought pursuant to Section 136.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)
of Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code.
(iv) Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer.
(v) Actions and proceedings under the Elder Abuse and Dependent
Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section
15600) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code).
(vi) Actions and proceedings involving the appointment of a
guardian or conservator.
(vii) Actions and proceedings in small claims court,
notwithstanding Section 116.550 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(viii) Actions and proceedings arising out of or related to
employment.
(ix) Actions and proceedings with respect to claims alleging
violation of civil rights.
(x) Other actions and proceedings in family court.
(xi) Other actions and proceedings in probate court.
(xii) Other limited civil actions and proceedings.
(xiii) Other unlimited civil actions and proceedings.
(B) Parties appearing in propria persona in the following order of
precedence by case type:
(i) Actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure or under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200)
of the Family Code.
(ii) Actions and proceedings under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part
3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code)
and actions and proceedings under Part 4 (commencing with Section
7800) of Division 12 of the Family Code.
(iii) Actions and proceedings for dissolution or nullity of
marriage or legal separation of the parties in which a protective
order has been granted or is being sought pursuant to Section 6221 of
the Family Code or a protective order has been granted or is being
sought pursuant to Section 136.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)
of Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code.
(iv) Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer.
(v) Actions and proceedings under the Elder Abuse and Dependent
Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section
15600) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code).
(vi) Actions and proceedings involving appointment of a guardian
or conservator.
(vii) Actions and proceedings arising out of or related to
employment.
(viii) Actions and proceedings with respect to claims alleging
violation of civil rights.
(ix) Other actions and proceedings in family court.
(x) Other actions and proceedings in probate court.
(xi) Other limited civil actions and proceedings.
(xii) Other unlimited civil actions and proceedings.
(C) Actions and proceedings in small claims court, notwithstanding
Section 116.550 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(D) Other parties in the following order of precedence by case
type:
(i) Actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure or under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200)
of the Family Code.
(ii) Actions and proceedings under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part
3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code)
and actions and proceedings under Part 4 (commencing with Section
7800) of Division 12 of the Family Code.
(iii) Actions and proceedings for dissolution or nullity of
marriage or legal separation of the parties in which a protective
order has been granted or is being sought pursuant to Section 6221 of
the Family Code or a protective order has been granted or is being
sought pursuant to Section 136.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)
of Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code.
(iv) Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer.
(v) Actions and proceedings under the Elder Abuse and Dependent
Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section
15600) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code).
(vi) Actions and proceedings involving the appointment of a
guardian or conservator.
(vii) Actions and proceedings in small claims court,
notwithstanding Section 116.550 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(viii) Actions and proceedings arising out of or related to
employment.
(ix) Actions and proceedings with respect to claims alleging
violation of civil rights.
(x) Other actions and proceedings in family court.
(xi) Other actions and proceedings in probate court.
(xii) Other limited civil actions and proceedings.
(xiii) Other unlimited civil actions and proceedings.
(4) This section shall not be construed to negate or limit any
right to an interpreter in a civil action or proceeding otherwise
provided by state or federal law.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) any
civil action in which an interpreter is required and provided under
this section, the court shall not commence proceedings until the
appointed interpreter is present and situated near the party and his
or her attorney. However, this section shall not prohibit the court
from doing either of the following:
(1) Issuing an order when the necessity for the order outweighs
the necessity for an interpreter.
(2) Extending the duration of a previously issued temporary order
if an interpreter is not readily available.
(d) This section does not prohibit the presence of any other
person to assist a party.
(e) A local public entity may, and the Judicial Council shall,
apply to the appropriate state agency that receives federal funds
authorized pursuant to the federal Violence Against Women Act (P.L.
103-322) for these federal funds or for funds from sources other than
the state to implement this section.
(f) The Judicial Council shall draft rules and modify forms
necessary to implement this section, including those for the petition
for a temporary restraining order and related forms, to inform both
parties of their right to an interpreter pursuant to this section.
(g) This section shall not be construed to alter the right of an
individual to an interpreter in criminal, traffic or other
infraction, juvenile, or mental competency actions or proceedings.
(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2007.
SEC. 4. The Judicial Council shall conduct a study of the need for
court interpreters in civil proceedings and the extent to which the
need for interpreters is being met pursuant to Section 755 of the
Evidence Code, and shall report its findings and recommendations to
the Governor and the Legislature on or before March 1, 2009, and
every two years thereafter. The study shall include data showing, by
court, the languages for which parties in civil matters need a
court-provided interpreter according to type of action or proceeding
and whether the party appears in propria persona or in forma
pauperis, as well as the extent to which each of these needs is met
by court employees or independent contractors, certified or
registered interpreters or, if not by a certified or registered
interpreter, then the circumstances warranting good cause for
appointment of a noncertified interpreter, the amounts expended for
each according to court, type of party and type of action or
proceeding, and the fees apportioned and collected from parties
pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 755 of the
Evidence Code. The report shall include findings and recommendations
regarding the need for additional interpreters and interpreter
compensation, whether the availability of interpreters or the
assessment of party fees has an impact on equal access to justice,
and the effect of court interpreters on court administration and
efficiency, including reduced courtroom time for hearings, increased
compliance with orders and court schedules, reduced case delays, and
enhanced coordination between courts and culturally relevant services
in the community.
SEC. 5. The Judicial Council shall adopt training guidelines so
that each trial court, in consultation with the exclusive
representative of interpreters, ensures that court interpreters
receive any training necessary to comply with the requirements of
this act. Training activities may include, but are not limited to,
video broadcasts, Internet-based training, and dissemination of
written materials.
SEC. 6. New appointments of court interpreters in civil matters
pursuant to this act shall not result in a reduction in staffing or
compromise the quality of service in criminal, juvenile, or other
types of matters in which appointments have been made.
SEC. 7. No more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be
appropriated in the 2007-08 Budget Act for the provision of court
interpreter services in civil matters. The Judicial Council shall
develop an implementation plan for providing court interpreters in
civil matters that shall not exceed ten million dollars ($10,000,000)
for the 2007 -08 fiscal year.