California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session

Assembly Bill No. 1127

Introduced by Assembly Member Chau

February 22, 2013

An act relating to court interpreters.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1127, as introduced, Chau. Court interpreters.

Existing law requires, when a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter to be sworn to interpret for him or her. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of language and interpreter use and need in court proceedings, with commentary, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature every 5 years. Existing law requires that this study serve as the basis for determining the need to establish interpreter programs and certification and for establishing these programs and examinations through the normal budgetary process.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that every effort be made to recruit and retain qualified interpreters to work in the state courts, and that the Judicial Council make further efforts to improve and expand court interpreter services and address the shortage of qualified court interpreters.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.  

The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of
the following:

(a) 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. It is essential to provide English learners and
other non-English-speaking litigants with interpreters in order to
provide full and equal access to our justice system without regard
to language.

(c) The Legislature has previously recognized that the number
of persons with limited English proficiency in California is
increasing and recognized the need to provide equal justice under
the law to all California residents and the need to provide for their
special needs in their relations with the judicial and administrative
law systems. 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) Court interpreter services are a core court function. 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.

(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) California law currently mandates the 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.  

The Legislature finds and declares that there continues
to be a shortage in the availability of certified and registered
interpreters in the state courts that impacts the state’s ability to
provide meaningful access to justice for all court users. It is the
intent of the Legislature that every effort be made to recruit and
retain qualified interpreters to work in the state courts, and that
the Judicial Council make further efforts to improve and expand
court interpreter services and address the shortage of qualified
court interpreters.