AB 1127,
as amended, Chau. begin deleteCourt interpreters. end deletebegin insertCourts: California Language Access Task Force.end insert
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.
begin insertThis bill would, on or before March 1, 2014, require the Judicial Council to establish the California Language Access Task Force, which would be responsible for developing a comprehensive statewide Language Access Plan (LAP) for use by courts to address the needs of limited-English-proficient individuals. The bill would require the task force to, among other things, establish standards for meaningful and timely access to language services in all court proceedings and at all public points of contact within the courts, and to establish a statewide plan to provide for the translation of court documents using competent and qualified interpreters. The bill would also make related legislative findings and declarations.
end insertThis 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.
end deleteVote: majority.
Appropriation: no.
Fiscal committee: begin deleteno end deletebegin insertyesend insert.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
The Legislature hereby finds and declares the
2following:
3(a) California is one of the most linguistically diverse states in
4the nation. As language diversity continues to increase, there is a
5greater need to ensure that all Californians have meaningful access
6to the court system.
7(b) There continues to be a need to expand and improve
8California’s ability to provide language assistance within the
9judicial system.
10(c) Currently, California has not developed a statewide plan to
11address the needs of limited-English-proficient individuals in all
12court proceedings and at all public points of contact within our
13courts.
begin insertSection 68567 is added to the end insertbegin insertGovernment Codeend insertbegin insert, to
15read:end insert
(a) On or before March 1, 2014, the Judicial Council
17shall establish the California Language Access Task Force, which
18shall be responsible for developing a comprehensive statewide
19Language Access Plan (LAP) for use by courts to address the needs
20of limited-English-proficient individuals.
21(b) In developing the LAP, the task force shall do all of the
22following:
23(1) Establish standards for meaningful and timely access to
24language services in all court proceedings and at all public points
25of contact within the courts.
P3 1(2) Establish procedures for gathering comprehensive data on
2the language access needs of court users,
including, but not limited
3to, providing a means of registering an individual’s language
4needs in court documents. These procedures should provide metrics
5on the need for interpreter services in court proceedings and
6ancillary programs and services.
7(3) Review current court interpreter procedures and recommend
8improvements or additional procedures to provide the most
9competent interpreter services to limited-English-proficient court
10users and to ensure compliance with Rule 2.890 of the California
11Rules of Court.
12(4) Review current court procedures and recommend
13improvements or additional procedures to maximize existing
14language resources, including bilingual staff, court interpreters,
15translators, and other resources shared among courts to expand
16access to language services at all public points of contact within
17the courts.
18(5) Review current practices and develop strategies to provide
19interpreter services that comply with the Trial Court Interpreter
20Employment and Labor Relations Act in all court proceedings.
21The review may include the evaluation of any programs providing
22interpreters in domestic violence cases or other civil cases,
23including any pilot projects.
24(6) Establish a statewide plan to provide for the translation of
25court documents using competent and qualified interpreters.
26(7) Establish a plan to provide education and training to judicial
27officers, court personnel, and court-appointed professionals on
28the legal requirements for language access, court policies and
29rules pertaining to language access, language service provider
30qualifications, ethics pertaining to interpreter services, the effective
31use of translated court
documents, and effective techniques for
32working with language service providers.
33(8) Review and consider the American Bar Association’s
34Standards for Language Access in Courts, as adopted February
352012.
The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of
37the following:
38(a) California is the most populous and demographically diverse
39state in the nation, a meeting place of cultures, ethnicities, and
40ideas unlike any other in the world. Of the state’s 34 million people,
P4 1about 26 percent (roughly 8.8 million people) are foreign born.
2Californians speak more than 220 languages, and 40 percent of
3the state’s population speaks a language other than English in the
4home. This extraordinary diversity is among the state’s greatest
5assets and has helped make California an international leader in
6business, the arts, entertainment, engineering, medicine, and other
7fields. The state’s diversity also poses unique challenges for the
8delivery of government
services, particularly for the courts.
9(b) For Californians not proficient in English, the prospect of
10navigating the legal system is daunting, especially for the growing
11number of parties who do not have access to legal services and
12therefore have no choice but to represent themselves in court,
13which is a virtually impossible task for people who are unable to
14understand the proceedings. Nearly seven million Californians
15cannot access the courts without significant language assistance,
16cannot understand pleadings, forms, or other legal documents,
17cannot communicate with clerks or court staff, and cannot
18understand or participate meaningfully in court proceedings, much
19less effectively present their cases without a qualified interpreter.
20People with limited English proficiency are also often members
21of groups whose cultural traits or economic circumstances make
22them more likely to be subjected to legal problems, in part because
23perpetrators
recognize their victims’ limited ability to access
24judicial protection. It is essential to provide English learners and
25other non-English-speaking litigants with interpreters in order to
26provide full and equal access to our justice system without regard
27to language.
28(c) The Legislature has previously recognized that the number
29of persons with limited English proficiency in California is
30increasing and recognized the need to provide equal justice under
31the law to all California residents and the need to provide for their
32special needs in their relations with the judicial and administrative
33law systems. The Legislature has likewise recognized that the
34effective maintenance of a democratic society depends on the right
35and ability of its residents to communicate with their government
36and the right and ability of the government to communicate with
37them.
38(d) Court interpreter services
are a core court function. Our
39judicial system relies on the adversarial process in which neutral
40arbiters decide disputes based upon competing presentations of
P5 1facts and law. Conducting court proceedings when one party is
2incapable of fully participating significantly impairs the quality
3and efficiency of the process and its results, including compliance
4with court orders.
5(e) The inability to respond to the language needs of parties in
6court impairs trust and confidence in the judicial system and
7undermines efforts to secure justice for all. The authority of the
8courts depends on public perceptions of fairness and accessibility.
9Any significant erosion of public trust and confidence in the
10fairness of judicial outcomes threatens the future legitimacy of the
11legal system. By excluding a large segment of the population from
12participation in an institution that shapes and reflects our values,
13we threaten the integrity of the judicial process.
Resentment
14fostered by the inability to access the benefits of the court system
15can ultimately impair enforcement of judicial decrees and attenuate
16the rule of law.
17(f) Reliance on untrained interpreters, such as family members
18or children, can lead to faulty translations and threaten the court’s
19ability to ensure justice. Court interpretation is extremely difficult
20and takes a rare combination of skills, experience, and training.
21Apart from the possibility of fraud, unqualified interpreters often
22fail to accurately and comprehensively convey questions and distort
23testimony by omitting or adding information, or by stylistically
24altering the tone and intent of the speaker, thereby preventing
25courts from hearing the testimony properly. These problems
26compromise the factfinding process and can result in genuine
27injustice.
28(g) California law currently mandates the appointment of an
29
interpreter for all witnesses in civil cases, and for parties with
30hearing impairments. In addition, California statutes mandate the
31appointment of an interpreter in adjudicative proceedings before
32state agencies, boards, and commissions at no charge to the parties
33whenever a party or the party’s witness does not proficiently speak
34or understand English. Other states, by contrast, provide both
35witnesses and parties with a right to a court-appointed interpreter
36in all civil matters at no cost to the party.
The Legislature finds and declares that there continues
38to be a shortage in the availability of certified and registered
39interpreters in the state courts that impacts the state’s ability to
40provide meaningful access to justice for all court users. It is the
P6 1intent of the Legislature that every effort be made to recruit and
2retain qualified interpreters to work in the state courts, and that
3the Judicial Council make further efforts to improve and expand
4court interpreter services and address the shortage of qualified
5court interpreters.
O
98