BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 1127 (Chau)
As Amended May 24, 2013
Hearing Date: June 25, 2013
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Courts: California Language Access Task Force
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require the Judicial Council to establish a
California Language Access Task Force, on or before March 1,
2014, charged with 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, as specified. This bill would require the task
force to provide the Judicial Council with its LAP on or before
September 1, 2014, and require the Judicial Council to develop a
statewide LAP on or before December 31, 2014.
This bill would provide that its requirements shall be
implemented upon appropriation of funding, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its
implementing regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of
race, color, national origin, sex, or religion by recipients of
federal financial assistance. Likewise, Executive Order 13166,
issued August 11, 2000 by President William Jefferson Clinton
directs each federal agency to work to ensure that recipients of
federal financial assistance (recipients) provide meaningful
access to applicants and beneficiaries with limited English
proficiency (LEP), and directs recipients to take reasonable
steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and
activities by LEP persons. Failure to provide such access can
constitute discrimination on the basis of national origin in
(more)
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 2 of ?
violation of Title VI.
California is home to a vast number of non-English and
limited-English speakers. Since at least 1992, the State
Legislature has expressly recognized "that the number of
non-English-speaking persons in California is increasing, and
recognizes the need to provide equal justice under the law to
all California citizens and residents and to provide for their
special needs in their relations with the judicial and
administrative law system." (Gov. Code Sec. 68560(e).)
Furthermore, the 2010 census demonstrated that this state is one
of the most diverse in the nation with 38 percent of its
population being Hispanic, 13 percent Asian, and 6 percent
African American. In addition, the census reflected that 27
percent of Californians (9.9 million) are foreign born with 20
percent of the population considered to have limited-English
proficiency.
While California law requires a court interpreter in civil cases
for parties who are deaf or have a hearing impairment that
prevents them from speaking or understanding English, it does
not provide a court interpreter for other parties in civil
matters who are not proficient in English. Likewise, existing
law does require an interpreter for witnesses who speak a
language other than English, but not for the parties in the
case. Also, even though existing law does allow courts to
assign interpreters already employed for criminal and juvenile
cases to civil cases (for a fee) when their services are not
required in criminal or juvenile cases, interpreters in civil
cases are not routinely provided, as a matter of right.
Access to interpreters for non-English or limited-English
speakers has been the subject of numerous reports from the
California Commission on Access to Justice (CCATJ). In the last
decade, CCATJ has issued several reports that assert language
services are essential to full and fair access to the civil
justice system: "Unless every Californian can fully understand
and participate in judicial proceedings affecting his or her
legal rights, our courts cannot serve their intended purpose and
our democracy cannot keep one of its most important promises."
In light of its findings, CCATJ has recommended, among other
things, that the state: (1) adopt a comprehensive language
access policy for courts; (2) develop specific recommendations
for court officials and staff to implement that policy; and (3)
compile existing data and conduct further research. (CCATJ
Language Barriers to Justice in California, Executive Summary
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 3 of ?
[as of June. 16,
2013] at pp. 3-4.)
Adequate access to interpreters has also been the subject of
attention from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in
an attempt to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. In February 2011, the Civil Rights Division
of the U.S. DOJ, prompted by a complaint by the Legal Aid
Foundation of Los Angeles alleging discrimination against
limited-English proficient (LEP) individuals on the basis of
national origin, initiated an investigation of the Los Angeles
County Superior Court (LASC) and the Judicial Council of
California. As a result of that investigation, the DOJ issued a
letter making various observations and recommendations aimed at
achieving voluntary compliance to ensure that LEP individuals
have meaningful access to court proceedings and court
operations. (See Comment 2 for more on this report.)
This bill, sponsored by the California Federation of
Interpreters, seeks to establish a Language Access Task Force
charged with developing a comprehensive statewide Language
Access Plan for use by courts to address the needs of all
limited-English-proficient individuals in conformance with state
and federal law, as specified, and upon appropriation of funding
under the annual Budget Act or other statute.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides, pursuant to federal and state law, that
no person shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic
group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation
(state law only), color, genetic information (state law only) or
disability, be unlawfully excluded from participation in, denied
the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity that is funded by the state or receives
federal financial assistance. This includes conduct that has a
disproportionate effect upon persons of limited English
proficiency. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d et seq. (Title VI); Gov.
Code Sec. 11135.)
Existing law , the California Constitution, 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, Sec. 14.)
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 4 of ?
Existing law provides 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. This requirement does not prohibit a
court from providing an unofficial translation of a court order
issued pursuant to specified provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure pertaining to temporary restraining orders and
injunctions in harassment and unlawful violence or credible
threats of violence cases. Existing law also requires the
Judicial Council to make available to all courts translations of
domestic violence protective order forms for protective orders
provided, as specified, in languages other than English, as it
deems appropriate. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 185.)
Existing law permits the court, in small claims cases, to allow
another individual (other than an attorney) to assist a party
that does not speak or understand English sufficiently to
comprehend the proceedings or give testimony. Each small claims
court must make reasonable efforts to maintain and make
available to the parties a list of interpreters, as specified,
and must postpone a hearing at least once to allow the party to
obtain an interpreter. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 116.550(b)-(d).)
Existing law requires that, in any civil or criminal action of
any kind where a party or witness is deaf or hearing impaired,
as defined, the proceedings shall be interpreted in a language
that the individual understands by a qualified interpreter
appointed by the court or other appointing authority, or as
agreed upon. (Evid. Code Sec. 754.)
Existing law provides that in any action or proceeding in
specified cases involving domestic violence, parental rights,
and marriage dissolution or legal separation involving a
protective order, an interpreter must 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.
Existing law provides that this requirement is contingent upon
federal funding. (Evid. Code Sec. 755(a), (e).)
Existing law requires, when a witness is incapable of
understanding or expressing him or herself in the English
language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and
jury, an interpreter must be sworn to interpret for him or her.
(Evid. Code Sec. 752(a).)
Existing law provides that when the written characters in a
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 5 of ?
writing offered in evidence are incapable of being deciphered or
understood directly, a translator who can decipher the
characters or understand the language must be sworn to decipher
or translate the writing. (Evid. Code Sec. 753(a).)
Existing law provides that the court in counties with
populations of 900,000 or over may employ as many foreign
language interpreters as may be necessary to interpret in
criminal cases, and in juvenile courts, and to translate
documents, as specified. Existing law requires that the court
assign interpreters in criminal and juvenile cases when those
interpreters are needed. Existing law permits the court to
assign interpreters in civil cases when their services are not
required in criminal or juvenile cases and, when so assigned,
the court must collect a fee from the litigants. (Gov. Code
Sec. 26806(a)-(c).)
This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before March
1, 2014, to establish the California Language Access Task Force
to develop 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.
This bill would specify that the task force's composition must
include court executive officers, presiding judges, interpreter
coordinators, interpreters, at least two of whom are 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 must also include a representative
from a rural community in order to highlight the particular
challenges of providing court interpreter services in rural
communities.
This bill would require the task force to do all of the
following in developing the LAP:
establish standards for meaningful and timely provision of
language services in all court proceedings and at all public
points of contact within the courts;
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, as specified;
review current court interpreter procedures and recommend
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 6 of ?
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 (relating to the professional
conduct of court interpreters);
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;
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 evaluation of any
programs providing interpreters in domestic violence or other
civil cases, including any pilot projects;
establish a statewide plan to provide for the translation of
court documents using competent and qualified interpreters;
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; and
review and consider the American Bar Association's Standards
for Language Access in Courts, as adopted February 2012.
This bill would require the task force to provide the LAP to the
Judicial Council on or before September 1, 2014. The Judicial
Council must then adopt a statewide LAP based on the LAP
provided by the task force, on or before December 31, 2014.
This bill would provide that the above requirements must be
implemented upon appropriation of funding for these purposes in
the annual Budget Act or another statute.
This bill would include the various legislative findings and
declarations.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 7 of ?
According to the author:
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 [percent]
of California's population is Hispanic, 13 [percent] Asian,
and 6 [percent] African American. In addition, 27 [percent]
of Californians (9.9 million) are foreign born with 20
[percent] 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.
It is essential that our state provides English learners and
other non-English speaking litigants with interpreters as well
as 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
bystanders 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.
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 8 of ?
2. Anti-discrimination laws and recent directives from the
U.S. Department of Justice
As noted in the Background, access to interpreters for
non-English or limited-English speakers is not only a matter of
state concern, as reflected in numerous California Commission on
Access to Justice reports, but it has been the subject of focus
by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ has issued
guidance for all states on how to provide meaningful access for
limited-English proficient (LEP) individuals in compliance with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing
regulations, as well as Executive Order 13166. (See
Background). The DOJ has also conducted investigations for
violations of Title VI throughout the country, including in this
state. Of particular relevance for this bill are a 2010
guidance letter and a 2013 letter relating to DOJ investigation
of a state Superior Court and Judicial Council.
a. General guidance from the DOJ
In its August 16, 2010 letter, the DOJ sought to provide
greater clarity to all states regarding the requirement that
courts receiving federal financial assistance provide
meaningful access to LEP individuals. In that letter, the DOJ
wrote:
Dispensing justice fairly, efficiently, and accurately is a
cornerstone of the judiciary. Policies and practices that
deny LEP persons meaningful access to the courts undermine
that cornerstone. They may also place state courts in
violation of long-standing civil rights requirements. Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended [ . . . ]
and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
[ . . . ] both prohibit national origin discrimination by
recipients of federal financial assistance. Title VI and
Safe Streets Act regulations further prohibit recipients
from administering programs in a manner that has the effect
of subjecting individuals to discrimination based on their
national origin. [Citation omitted.]
The Supreme Court has held that failing to take reasonable
steps to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons is a form
of national origin discrimination prohibited by Title VI
regulations. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Executive Order 13166, which was issued in 2000, further
emphasized the point by directing federal agencies to
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 9 of ?
publish LEP guidance for their financial assistance
recipients, consistent with initial general guidance from
DOJ. See 65 Fed. Reg. 50, 121 (Aug. 16, 2000). [ . . . ]
Despite efforts to bring courts into compliance, some state
court system policies and practices significantly and
unreasonably impede, hinder, or restrict participation in
court proceedings and access to court operations based upon
a person's English language ability.
The DOJ provided examples of particular concern, which it
believed are in most circumstances prohibited by Title VI and
its implementing regulations, including: (1) limitations on
the types of proceedings for which qualified interpreter
services are provided by the court; (2) the charging of
interpreter costs to one or more parties (that is tantamount
to "arranging" court interpreter services, as opposed to
"providing" those services); (3) restrictions that limit
language services to courtrooms; and (4) failing to ensure
effective communication with court-appointed or supervised
personnel. In that 2010 letter, the DOJ directed that such
services should not be dispensed with due to budgetary
constraints. Specifically, DOJ stated:
Language services expenses should be treated as a basic and
essential operating expense, not as an ancillary cost.
Court systems have many operating expenses -judges and
staff, buildings, utilities, security, filing, data and
records systems, insurance, research, and printing costs,
to name a few. Court systems in every part of the country
serve populations of LEP individuals and most
jurisdictions, if not all, have encountered substantial
increases in the number of LEP parties and witnesses and
the diversity of languages they speak. Budgeting adequate
funds to ensure language access is fundamental to the
business of the courts.
We recognize that most state and local courts are
struggling with unusual budgetary constraints that have
slowed the pace of progress in this area. [ . . . ] Fiscal
pressures, however, do not provide an exemption from civil
rights requirements.
In a 2002 guidance document on this issue, the DOJ "encourages
recipients to develop and maintain a periodically-updated
written plan on language assistance for LEP persons as an
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 10 of ?
appropriate and cost-effective means of documenting compliance
and providing a framework for the provision of timely and
reasonable language assistance. Such written plans can
provide additional benefits to recipients' managers in the
areas of training, administrating, planning, and budgeting.
[These] benefits should lead most recipients to document in a
written LEP plan their language assistance services, and how
staff and LEP persons can access those services. In court
systems, we have found that meaningful access inside the
courtroom is most effectively implemented in states that have
adopted a court rule, statute, or administrative order
providing for universal, free, and qualified court
interpreting."
This bill would arguably help provide such an LEP plan for
California.
b. Letter regarding the DOJ investigation of a California
court and Judicial Council
Approximately six months after it issued the guidance letter
discussed above, the DOJ received a complaint from the Legal
Aid Foundation of Los Angeles alleging discrimination against
LEP individuals on the basis of national origin. The
complaint alleged that the Los Angeles County Superior Court
(LASC) fails to provide LEP individuals with meaningful access
to its court services, including civil proceedings and court
operations. The DOJ opened an investigation focused on LASC,
but also reviewed mandates and policies that are promulgated
and enforced at the state level through the Judicial Council
and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as a part of
that investigation. The results of that investigation were
provided in a May 22, 2013 letter to the Chief Justice,
Administrative Director of the Courts for the AOC, and the
Presiding Judge of LASC, and were aimed primarily at helping
the state achieve voluntary compliance by making various
observations and recommendations. (DOJ, Investigation of the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County and Judicial
Council of California (Complaint No. 171-12C-31).)
In the letter, the DOJ reiterated that Title VI requirements
and its implementing regulations require recipients of federal
financial assistance to provide meaningful access to LEP
individuals-including translating written materials for LEP
individuals. (Id. at pp. 2-3, citing Colwell v. Dep't of
Health and Human Services (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F.3d 1112,
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 11 of ?
1126.) Moreover, the DOJ noted the fact that every
application for federal financial assistance is also
accompanied by a contractual assurance that the program will
be conducted in compliance with all of the Title VI
requirements, and therefore, "the DOJ has authority to enforce
the contractual obligations attendant to receipt of its
federal financial assistance." (Id. at p. 3, citations
omitted.)
As a result of its investigation, the DOJ noted several major
areas of concern for California, briefly summarized as
follows:
Title VI requires that interpreter services in all court
proceedings be provided free of charge, yet, limitations on
providing free court-certified or qualified interpreters
for LEP litigants in non-criminal and non-juvenile
proceedings in California are codified under statute, and
reflected in Rules of Court and AOC guidelines and policy.
This "disproportionately and negatively impacts national
origin minorities, resulting in, among other things, great
costs, delays, and lack of full participation because of
the use of family and friends, or similar volunteers, with
untested language and interpreting skills serving as
interpreters."
Incompetent interpreter services provided through the
use of non-interpreters in court proceedings, including by
family and friends is of concern and particularly
heightened in a court proceeding "where credibility and
accuracy are important to protect an individual's rights."
Competency requires more than just a person
self-identifying as being bilingual and the courts'
"obligation to ensure competent interpretation is why the
use of non-interpreter volunteers, family members, or
friends is not appropriate in the context of court
proceedings."
Non-Spanish-speaking LEP litigants suffer even greater
barriers to access due to substantial deficits in the
availability of language services. The obligation of the
courts is to provide meaningful access to all LEP
individuals, yet the DOJ's search of the Judicial Branch
forms website, for example, yielded only Spanish
translations of fee waiver forms.
Unclear budgetary guidance from AOC regarding
reimbursement of interpreter costs for non-mandated cases.
On this point, the DOJ wrote:
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 12 of ?
Staff members for the AOC confirmed that as a practical
matter, if the court chooses within its discretion to
provide an interpreter free of charge, all court requests
for reimbursement for interpreter costs were honored,
regardless of whether the costs were incurred for
mandated (e.g. criminal and juvenile) or non-mandated
(e.g. most civil) cases. However, the AOC has not
provided any official written guidance to Superior Courts
that interpreter costs for non-mandated cases would be
reimbursed. It is our understanding that LASC has
requested formal guidance on this matter, but the AOC has
not confirmed such costs, if incurred, would be
reimbursed. The AOC has widely distributed a document to
Superior Courts entitled 'Use of Court Appointed
Interpreters and Payment of Fees in Court Proceedings'
that appears to contrast with the AOC's willingness to
reimburse courts for their interpreter expenditures in
non-mandated cases. The document specifies that the LEP
party is responsible for the cost of an interpreter in
non-mandated cases and instructs that the court will only
pay for those matters listed as mandated. DOJ is further
informed that without confirmation, LASC will not expand
the use of court-certified interpreters for non-mandated
cases. (Id. at 6; internal footnotes omitted.)
Relatedly, the DOJ letter noted "an area of great concern"
with respect to the underutilization and transfer of funds
appropriated for court interpreters, which has received an
annual $92.794 million appropriation as part of the state
budget. The DOJ confirmed that in each of the last three
fiscal years, that fund (the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)
45.45) has been consistently underused, leaving a total of
over $8 million in reserve-funds that, as noted by the DOJ,
could have been used to cover thousands of hours of
interpreter services without costs to LEP litigants. The DOJ
also took special notice of the fact that the Judicial Council
has in the past diverted $3 million of the unused funds from
TCTF 45.45 to fund trial court operations, and in July 2012
considered a recommendation to transfer another $6.5 million
of the unused funds for other uses-a recommendation that was
ultimately withdrawn. While under the current Chief Justice,
the Judicial Council has taken efforts to protect these funds
from another transfer, those funds still remain unused and "at
risk of being diverted to uses other than the interpreter
services for which they were intended." (Id. at pp. 6-7.)
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 13 of ?
Ultimately, the DOJ offered steps to help bring the state into
voluntary compliance with federal law. In addition to
recommending that the Judicial Council "refrain from taking
any actions to re-allocate the unspent appropriations in TCTF
45.45" and that the AOC provide formal notification to LASC
that there is no statutory impediment or Judicial Council
authority that prevents the AOC from reimbursing the court for
eligible expenditure, the DOJ recommendations included the
following:
(1) the AOC should consider efficiencies and practices
that, when implemented appropriately, can improve and
increase language services in proceedings and operations,
such as identifying LEP litigants as early as possible and
ensuring that information is captured on court files;
greater utilization of staff interpreters; and
appropriately utilizing technology, such as video remote
interpreting;
(2) the Judicial Council should renew and expand its
efforts to provide interpreter services for all LEP
litigants across the state;
(3) the AOC and LASC should clarify the ability to waive
interpreter fees for indigent litigants with, and ensuring
training on this issue for, judicial officials and court
staff and the AOC should arrange for translation of fee
waiver forms into the most common languages other than
English and Spanish;
(4) the AOC should implement a statewide complaint process
to help identify assistance issues and specific areas in
need of improvement;
(5) identify a statewide language access coordinator; and
(6) identify appropriate ways to estimate the cost of
expansion of language services to all civil proceedings in
order to facilitate and support legislative changes and
budgetary requests to fund an expansion of language
services. (Id. at pp. 8-10.)
This bill arguably could help the state take initial steps
towards voluntary compliance, by creating a California Language
Access Task Force charged specifically with creating a language
access plan that, among other things, would:
" establish standards for meaningful and timely provision of
language services in all court proceedings and at all public
points of contact within the courts;
review current court procedures and recommend improvements or
additional procedures to maximize existing language resources,
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 14 of ?
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;
establish a statewide plan to provide for the translation of
court documents using competent and qualified interpreters;
and
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.
3. The proposed Language Access Task Force would implement a
language access plan to help ensure California complies with
federal law
Existing law (SB 1304, Lockyer, Ch. 770, Stats. 1992) provides
that the Judicial Council may establish a court interpreters
advisory panel to assist the council in performing its duties.
That panel, the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel (CIAP),
pursuant to California Rules of Court, has been in existence for
a number of years. A key goal of SB 1304 was to coordinate all
elements essential to providing interpreter services into a
single program developed by the Judicial Council and the courts,
and to promote access to spoken-language interpreters and
interpreters for deaf and hearing-impaired persons. According
to a March 2013 Administrative Office of the Courts' fact sheet
on court interpreters, the panel specifically assists the
Judicial Council with, among other things: designating the
languages for which certification programs will be established;
adopting programs for recruitment, training, continuing
education, and evaluation to ensure that adequate numbers of
interpreters are available and that they interpret competently;
and setting fees or establish fee guidelines for interpreter
examinations, and for certification or renewal of certification.
While that CIAP does not necessarily examine the issues that are
the subject of this proposed task force, the Judicial Council
reportedly has internal advisory or ad hoc groups informally
examining issues relating to court interpreters. In contrast,
this bill would formally bring certain stakeholders together to
focus on ways to ensure people have access to the courts where
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 15 of ?
that access is dependent upon the provision of a court reporter,
while also examining how to maximize resources to expand access
throughout the state, in order to bring California in compliance
with federal anti-discrimination laws.
Pursuant to this bill, the task force would be comprised of
court executive officers, presiding judges, interpreter
coordinators, interpreters (at least two of whom are nominated
by an exclusive representative of interpreter employees),
representatives of legal services organizations and
organizations representing individuals with limited English
proficiency, as well as any other persons the Judicial Council
determines necessary. The task force must also include a rural
community representative in order to highlight the particular
challenges of providing court interpreter services in rural
communities. The sponsor of this bill, the California
Federation of Interpreters, writes:
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. [ . . . ] 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
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 16 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.
In light of the direction provided by the Department of Justice
(discussed in Comment 2 above), this bill would arguably not
only serve to reflect the state's concerted efforts to comply
with those anti-discrimination laws, but by taking a holistic
view of current practices and resources, it could also provide a
blueprint for the state on how to take efficient steps that
would begin to bring the state into compliance with those laws.
4. Contingent upon funding
This bill specifically provides that its requirements must be
implemented upon appropriation of funding for these purposes in
the annual Budget Act or another statute. Staff notes that the
Budget Act of 2013 did not contain any such appropriations.
The author writes that "AB 1127 improves access to justice for
nearly 7 million Californians who need significant language
assistance in order to access the courts. This bill expresses
the intent to implement the provisions of the bill upon the
appropriation of funding for a Language Access Plan (LAP). We
are committed to working with the Appropriations committee on
the funding language in this bill and will through this process
make sure that there are no outstanding concerns"
Support : American Civil Liberties Union; Asian American Center
for Advancing Justice; Asian Americans for Civil Rights and
Equality (AACRE); California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC);
Legal Aid Association of California; one constituent
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Federation of Interpreters
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 17 of ?
Related Pending Legislation : SB 597 (Lara), similar to AB 3050
(Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2008) below, would have created a
pilot project to provide for interpreters in civil proceedings
in up to five courts, as specified, for the purpose of creating
models for effectively providing interpreters in civil matters,
implementing best practices, and ascertaining the need for
additional interpreter resources and funding to provide
interpreters in civil matters on a statewide basis. That bill
was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Prior Legislation :
AB 3050 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2008) would have
established a Judicial Council working group and pilot program
to provide court interpreters in specified civil proceedings in
up to five courts, for any party proceeding in forma pauperis
who is present and who does not speak or understand English
proficiently enough for the purpose of understanding court
proceedings. The bill would have required the working group to
consider ways in which to maximize the use of existing
resources, calendaring issues, the effective use of technology,
and other practices that will assist courts to deploy
interpreters effectively in civil proceedings. This bill was
vetoed.
AB 1726 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2007) was virtually
identical to AB 2302 below. This bill died in Assembly
Appropriations Committee on the suspense file.
AB 2302 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2006) would have required
the courts to provide interpreters when needed in family law,
domestic violence, and other civil matters, as specified. This
bill was vetoed out of stated budgetary concerns.
AB 2227 (Chu, 2006) would have required the Judicial Council to
establish an advisory panel to assist the Judicial Council in
promulgating and implementing standards and policies for the
trial courts to ensure meaningful language access in the trial
courts. That bill would have required the advisory panel to
consist of 15 members, as specified. That bill would have
required the panel, on or before July 1, 2008, to report to the
Legislature and the Judicial Council on the existing
certification system and recommend changes to ensure competence,
improve fairness and transparency in the certification process,
and ensure access to the profession by competent and qualified
AB 1127 (Chau)
Page 18 of ?
candidates. This bill was vetoed.
SB 1034 (Lockyer, Ch. 770, Stats. 1992) See Comment 3.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 55, Noes 23)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 2)
**************