BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1127
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1127 (Chau) - As Amended: March 21, 2013
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : COURTS: LANGUAGE ACCESS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL BE DIRECTED TO ESTABLISH
A TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A LANGUAGE ACCESS PLAN FOR COURT USERS
WHO LACK SUFFICIENT PROFICIENCY IN ENGLISH?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill would direct the Judicial Council to create a task
force for the purpose of developing a statewide language access
plan for court users who need assistance with English. Federal
and state civil rights laws require that court facilities be
fully and equally accessible without regard to language. By
many measures, California appears to fall short of meeting these
obligations. Supporters of this measure believe that the
adoption of a Language Access Plan would facilitate compliance.
While the Judicial Council does not need new legal authority to
comply with existing obligations, supporters believe this bill
would provide helpful and necessary guidance. There is no known
opposition.
SUMMARY : Directs the Judicial Council to create a task force
for the purpose of developing a statewide Language Access Plan.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that on or before March 1, 2014, the Judicial Council
shall establish the California Language Access Task Force,
which shall be responsible for developing a comprehensive
statewide Language Access Plan (LAP) for use by courts to
address the needs of limited-English-proficient individuals.
2)Specifies that the composition of the task force shall include
court executive officers, presiding judges, interpreter
coordinators, interpreters, at least two of whom shall be
nominated by an exclusive representative of interpreter
AB 1127
Page 2
employees, representatives of legal services organizations and
organizations representing individuals with limited English
proficiency, and others the Judicial Council determines
necessary. The working group shall also include a
representative from a rural community in order to highlight
the particular challenges of providing court interpreter
services in rural communities.
3)Provides that in developing the LAP, the task force shall do
all of the following:
a) Establish standards for meaningful and timely access to
language services in all court proceedings and at all
public points of contact within the courts.
b) Establish procedures for gathering comprehensive data on
the language access needs of court users, including, but
not limited to, providing a means of registering an
individual's language needs in court documents. These
procedures should provide metrics on the need for
interpreter services in court proceedings and ancillary
programs and services.
c) Review current court interpreter procedures and
recommend improvements or additional procedures to provide
the most competent interpreter services to
limited-English-proficient court users and to ensure
compliance with Rule 2.890 of the California Rules of
Court.
d) Review current court procedures and recommend
improvements or additional procedures to maximize existing
language resources, including bilingual staff, court
interpreters, translators, and other resources shared among
courts to expand access to language services at all public
points of contact within the courts.
e) Review current practices and develop strategies to
provide interpreter services that comply with the Trial
Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act in all
court proceedings. The review may include the evaluation of
any programs providing interpreters in domestic violence
cases or other civil cases, including any pilot projects.
f) Establish a statewide plan to provide for the
AB 1127
Page 3
translation of court documents using competent and
qualified interpreters.
g) Establish a plan to provide education and training to
judicial officers, court personnel, and court-appointed
professionals on the legal requirements for language
access, court policies and rules pertaining to language
access, language service provider qualifications, ethics
pertaining to interpreter services, the effective use of
translated court documents, and effective techniques for
working with language service providers.
h) Review and consider the American Bar Association's
Standards for Language Access in Courts, as adopted
February 2012.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires that every written proceeding in a court of justice
in this state shall be in the English language, and judicial
proceedings shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no
other. (Code of Civil Procedure section 185.)
2)Provides pursuant to federal law that no person shall on the
ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance, including conduct that has a
disproportionate effect on persons of limited English
proficiency. (42 U.S.C. section 2000(d).) State law is to
the same effect, except that unlike federal law there is a
private right of action. (Government Code section 11135.)
3)Provides that a person unable to understand English who is
charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout
the proceedings. (Cal. Const., Art. I, section 14.)
4)Requires appointment of a qualified interpreter in all civil
proceedings where a party or witness is an individual who is
deaf or hearing impaired. (Evidence Code section 754.)
5)Provides for the appointment of an interpreter in certain
cases involving domestic violence, parental rights, and
dissolution of marriage involving a protective order, subject
to the availability of federal funding. (Evidence Code
AB 1127
Page 4
section 755.)
6)Requires appointment of an interpreter whenever a witness is
incapable of understanding the English language or is
incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English
language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court and
jury. (Evidence Code section 752.)
7)Requires appointment of a translator whenever the written
characters in a writing offered in evidence are incapable of
being deciphered or understood directly. (Evidence Code
section 753.)
COMMENTS : The author explains the reason for bill as follows:
AB 1127 would provide Californians with an explicitly
recognized right to equal access to the courts without
regard to language proficiency by creating a comprehensive
language access plan.
According to the 2010 Census, California is the most
populous state in the nation with over 37 million people,
and is home to one of the world's most diverse populations.
38% of California's population is Hispanic, 13% Asian, and
6% African American. In addition, 27% of Californians (9.9
million) are foreign born with 20% of the population
considered limited English proficient.
California language access law consists of a patchwork of
statutes, rules and policies. Furthermore, the landscape
for language access standards nationwide is changing due to
the US Department of Justice enforcement of language access
requirements under federal civil rights laws.
For Californians who are not proficient in English, the
prospect of navigating the legal system is daunting.
According to a 2005 report from the California Commission
on Access to Justice titled, Language Barriers to Justice
in California, nearly seven million Californians cannot
access the courts without significant language assistance.
The extreme difficulties involved in participating in
California's justice system lead many of California's most
vulnerable populations to forego their rights rather than
attempt to overcome difficult hurdles.
AB 1127
Page 5
It is essential that our state provides English learners
and other non-English speaking litigants with interpreters
and full and equal access to our justice system. However,
the availability of qualified court interpreters in
California has declined steeply over the years. Courtroom
interpreting poses unique challenges and requires
specialized skills and training. In many cases, parties who
cannot afford their own court interpreter rely on family
members, friends, or bystander to provide interpretation
for them. Although well intentioned, without qualified
court interpreters, it is often difficult for untrained
individuals to translate complex procedural or legal terms
or concepts that may have no counterpart in language or
culture of the non-English speaker.
AB 1127 would create a statewide Language Access Plan which
will develop specific recommendations for court officials
and staff to address language access issues in our court
systems.
The sponsor of the measure, California Federation of
Interpreters (CFI), is the labor union and professional
association for court interpreters. CFI states:
California has continued to struggle to meet the needs for
language assistance in our justice system and it is time
that we recognize that all Californians have a
constitutional right to access the courts without regard to
language proficiency.
While the landscape for language access standards
nationwide is changing, due to the US Department of Justice
enforcement of language access requirements, California's
language access law consists of a patchwork of statutes,
rules and policies. AB 1127 requires the Judicial Council
to establish the California Language Access Task Force, on
or before March 1, 2014, to be responsible for developing a
comprehensive language access plan for our courts and
ensuring that the right to a qualified, competent and
certified court interpreter is available to
limited-English-speaking individuals.
When courts fail to provide court interpreters people
suffer. Non-English speaking individuals who can neither
communicate nor understand what is happening in court
struggle to protect their children, homes and safety.
AB 1127
Page 6
According to the 2010 Census, California is the most
populous state in the nation with over 37 million people,
and home to one of the world's most diverse populations,
38% Hispanic, 13% Asian, and 6% African American. However
in recent years, contrary to our growing diversity,
California's availability of court interpreters has steeply
declined.
Qualified court interpreters provide
limited-English-speaking individuals guidance for
navigating through the legal system and assistance in
protecting their rights. Without interpreters, the extreme
difficulties involved in participating in California's
justice system forces many of California's most vulnerable
populations to forego their rights rather than attempt to
overcome language barriers and other obstacles.
The California Commission on Access to Justice, tasked with
exploring ways to improve access to civil justice for
Californians living on low and moderate incomes, has
recognized the essential need to expand language access in
California. As noted in their Action Plan for Justice,
"with 20 percent of California's population unable to speak
English at the minimum level necessary for meaningful
participation in a judicial proceeding, we should:
guarantee the right to qualified interpreter services in
civil proceedings; develop policies and procedures to
improve language access; reevaluate the system for
recruitment, training, compensation and certification of
court interpreters; and evaluate the role of lawyers, bar
associations, legal services programs, law schools and law
libraries."
AB 1127, the California Language Access Task Force, is the
first step in addressing statewide language access issues
in our court system. By establishing a Language Access
Plan (LAP), Californians would gain meaningful and timely
language services in all court proceedings, and at all
public points of contact within the courts.
Language Access Is A Fundamental Feature of Existing
Anti-Discrimination Laws. In policy guidance issued August 16,
2010, and in a significant number of enforcement actions in
recent years, the United States Department of Justice has made
it clear that language access in the courts is a required
AB 1127
Page 7
element of state compliance with federal anti-discrimination law
when states receive federal financial assistance. State
anti-discrimination law is to the same effect, except that
unlike federal law it provides a private right of action. In
the context of court services, US DOJ has made clear that this
obligation includes both interpreters in court proceedings and
the provision of other public points of contact, such as court
clerks and other personnel. (See United States Department of
Justice letter to state court administrators, Aug, 16, 2010,
available at http://www.lep.gov/final_courts_ltr_081610.pdf.)
While California may be better situated than some states in its
compliance with these obligations, it is also clear that the
linguistic needs of the state are greater than many others, and
our court system reportedly provides far less than other states.
Disturbingly, language access in the court system apparently
falls far short of the DOJ standards, which require among other
provisions that qualified interpreter services be provided in
all court and court-annexed proceedings, whether civil,
criminal, or administrative including those presided over by
non-judges. In addition, some courts reportedly impose extra
fees on court users who need an interpreter, contrary to DOJ's
admonition that court proceedings are among the most important
activities conducted by recipients of federal funds, and that
interpreters must be provided free of cost. So too, the DOJ has
instructed that meaningful access must include court functions
that are conducted outside the courtroom including information
counters; intake or filing offices; cashiers; records rooms;
sheriff's offices; probation and parole offices; alternative
dispute resolution programs; pro se clinics; criminal diversion
programs; anger management classes; detention facilities; and
other similar offices, operations, and programs.
It is believed that there is at least one active DOJ complaint
against the California court system currently under
investigation.
There Appears To Be No Existing Language Access Plan For The
Judicial Branch, Although Individual Courts Reportedly Have
Their Own Language Access Plans. According to supporters and
independent research it appears that there is no statewide
language access plan for the court system, although individual
courts have adopted documents bearing the title language access
plan. It seems plain that the Judicial Council currently has
the full legal authority needed to establish a language access
AB 1127
Page 8
plan and to take the further steps needed to comply with the law
whether or not this bill becomes law. However, it is believed
that no such effort has been undertaken. Undoubtedly, there may
be cost concerns. But the DOJ has made it clear that cost is
not a defense to noncompliance. Failure to take appropriate
action may subject the state to federal enforcement action or to
a private lawsuit under cognate state law.
This Bill Would Direct The Judicial Council To Establish A Task
Force Charged With Developing a Statewide Language Access Plan.
Supporters argue that the creation of a language access plan is
a critical first step toward getting the judicial branch in
compliance with existing civil rights laws. This bill would
direct the Judicial Council to establish a task force
responsible for drafting a language access plan with defined
dates and composition.
Author's Proposed Clarifying Amendments . In order to supply
helpful missing details, the author proposes to amend the bill
as follows:
(a) On or before March 1, 2014, the Judicial Council shall
establish the California Language Access Task Force, which shall
be responsible for developing a comprehensive statewide Language
Access Plan (LAP) for use by courts to address the needs of all
limited-English-proficient individuals in conformance with state
and federal law .
(b) The task force shall include court executive officers,
presiding judges, interpreter coordinators, interpreters, at
least two of whom shall be nominated by an exclusive
representative of interpreter employees, representatives of
legal services organizations and organizations representing
individuals with limited English proficiency, and others the
Judicial Council determines necessary. The task force shall also
include a representative from a rural community in order to
highlight the particular challenges of providing court
interpreter services in rural communities.
( b )(c) In developing the LAP, the task force shall do all of the
following:
(1) Establish standards for meaningful and timely access to
provision of language services in all court proceedings and at
all public points of contact within the courts.
AB 1127
Page 9
(d) The Judicial Council shall adopt a statewide LAP no later
than December 31, 2014.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Federation of Interpreters (sponsor)
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian American Center for Advancing Justice
California Immigrant Policy Center
Legal Aid Association of California
One individual court interpreter
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334