BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1127|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1127
Author: Chau (D), et al.
Amended: 9/6/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/25/13
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
NOES: Walters, Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/30/13
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-23, 5/30/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Courts: interpreters
SOURCE : California Federation of Interpreters
DIGEST : This bill requires the Judicial Council (Council), on
or before July 1, 2014, to implement a three-year pilot program
in three courts to provide interpreters in civil proceedings.
It also requires the Council to establish, on or before March 1,
2014, a working group to review, identify and develop best
practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and
proceedings. This bill requires the Council and its advisory
bodies, on or before September 1, 2014, to submit an interim
report to the Legislature that includes the status of its
efforts and completion date for its formulation of a statewide
Language Access Plan (LAP).
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
2
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/6/13 make technical corrections,
and specify that the funding source may be used either upon
allocation by the Council pursuant to the Council's existing
expenditure authority, or upon appropriation by the Legislature,
from unexpended funds previously allocated for court interpreter
services.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. 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 (LEP).
2. Provides, under the California Constitution, that a person
unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has
a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings.
3. Provides that every written proceeding in a court of justice
in this state is prepared in the English language, and
judicial proceedings are 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. Requires the 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.
4. 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
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
3
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.
5. 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 will 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.
6. 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/her attorney.
Provides that this requirement is contingent upon federal
funding.
7. Requires, when a witness is incapable of understanding or
expressing himself/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/her.
8. Provides that when the written characters in a 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.
9. 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. Requires that the court assign interpreters in
criminal and juvenile cases when those interpreters are
needed. 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.
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
4
This bill:
1. Specifies that the Council's working group's composition
include court executive officers, presiding judges,
interpreter coordinators, interpreters, as specified,
representatives of legal services organizations and
organizations representing individuals with LEP, and others
the Council determines necessary. The working group must
also include a representative from a rural community in order
to highlight the particular challenges of providing court
interpreter services in rural communities.
2. Requires the working group to do all of the following in
developing the LAP:
A. Establish standards for meaningful and timely
provision of 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, as
specified.
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 (relating to the professional conduct of court
interpreters).
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 evaluation
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
5
of any programs providing interpreters in domestic
violence or other civil cases, including any pilot
projects.
F. Establish a statewide plan to provide for the
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.
1. Requires, on or before September 1, 2014, the Council and
its advisory bodies to submit an interim report to the
Legislature, which includes the status of its efforts and
completion date for the LAP.
2. Sunsets the working group on January 1, 2020.
3. Provides that the pilot program, commencing July 1, 2014, be
conducted for the purpose of creating models for efficiency
providing interpreters in civil matters and implementing best
practices, funded by up to $6 million from the Trial Court
Trust Fund, upon allocation by the Council's existing
expenditure authority, or upon appropriation by the
Legislature, as specified.
4. Specifies that the pilot courts provide interpreters to any
party in a civil proceeding who is present and who does not
proficiently speak or understand the English language. Pilot
courts must also establish protocols to ensure that parties
who speak limited or no English and need interpreter services
are identified at the earliest point of contact with the
court system, as specified.
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
6
5. Sunsets the pilot project on July 1, 2017.
6. Provides that the above requirements must be implemented
upon appropriation of funding for these purposes in the
annual Budget Act or another statute.
7. Includes legislative declarations and findings.
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 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 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." (Government Code Section 68560(e).)
Furthermore, the 2010 Census demonstrated that this state is
one of the most diverse in the nation with 38% of its population
being Hispanic, 13% Asian, and 6% African American. In
addition, the Census reflected that 27% of Californians (9.9
million) are foreign born with 20% of the population considered
to have LEP.
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
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
7
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
[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 DOJ, prompted by a complaint by the Legal Aid Foundation
of Los Angeles alleging discrimination against
limited-English-proficient individuals on the basis of national
origin, initiated an investigation of the Los Angeles County
Superior Court 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.)
Prior Legislation
AB 3050 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2008) would have
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
8
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. The bill was
vetoed.
AB 1726 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2007) was virtually
identical to AB 2302 below. The bill died in the 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. The
bill was vetoed out of stated budgetary concerns.
AB 2227 (Chu, 2006) would have required the Council to establish
an advisory panel to assist the Council in promulgating and
implementing standards and policies for the trial courts to
ensure meaningful language access in the trial courts. The bill
would have required the advisory panel to consist of 15 members,
as specified. The bill would have required the panel, on or
before July 1, 2008, to report to the Legislature and the
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 candidates. The bill was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Pilot program costs of up to $6 million (General Fund*) over
three years from unexpended prior year appropriations for
court interpreter services to provide interpreters in civil
proceedings in up to three courts. Total costs would be
dependent on the size and diversity of counties selected and
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
9
interpreter needs specific to the pilot counties.
Annual costs potentially in excess of $100,000 (General
Fund*) through January 1, 2019, for the Council to establish
and facilitate operations and activities of the working
group.
One-time cost to the Council to complete and submit the
report evaluating the pilot project to the Legislature by
July 1, 2018.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/13)
California Federation of Interpreters (source)
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian American Center for Advancing Justice
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Family Bridges, Inc.
Legal Aid Association of California
Magna Systems, Inc.
Mexican American Opportunity Foundation
Pacific Asian Counseling Services
Western Center on Law and Poverty
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
10
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-23, 5/30/13
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra,
Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Cooley, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong,
Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, V.
Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John
A. Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Linder,
Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Morrell, Nestande,
Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Vacancy
AL:k 9/9/13 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
AB 1127
Page
11
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED