BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1127
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 1127 (Chau)
As Amended September 6, 2013
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |55-23|(May 30, 2013) |SENATE: |28-9 |(September 11, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |55-23|(September 11, | | | |
| | |2013) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Directs the Judicial Council to create a task force
for the purpose of developing a statewide Language Access Plan.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes specified findings and declarations regarding the need
for language access in California courts.
2)Requires that on or before March 1, 2014, the Judicial Council
shall establish a working group to act as an advisory body to
any Judicial Council committee, advisory board, or joint
committee charged with developing a comprehensive statewide
Language Access Plan, to review, identify, and develop best
practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and
proceedings and to use those best practices in carrying out
the pilot project described below.
3)Specifies the tasks to be performed and the issues that shall
be considered and included by the working group in the
development of best practices for the pilot project, and sets
forth the composition of the working group
4)Provides that the working group shall select up to three
courts to participate in a pilot project, which shall commence
AB 1127
Page 2
on or before July 1, 2014, for the purpose of creating models
for effectively providing interpreters in civil matters and
implementing best practices.
5)Specifies that the pilot project, including costs of
administration and the preparation of the report to the
Legislature, may be funded by up to $6 million from the Trial
Court Trust Fund upon appropriation by the Legislature from
unexpended funds previously allocated for court interpreter
services.
6)Directs that interpreters shall be provided by the pilot
courts as follows:
a) The pilot courts shall provide interpreters to any party
in a civil proceeding who is present and who does not
proficiently speak or understand the English language for
the purpose of interpreting the proceedings in a language
that the party understands and assisting communications
between the party, his or her attorney, and the court.
b) If the pilot courts expend more than 75% of the funding
within the first 24 months of the pilot project, pilot
courts may prioritize interpreter services in the following
types of actions and proceedings, for purposes of this
pilot project:
i) Actions and proceedings under Code of Civil
Procedure Section 527.6.
ii) Actions and proceedings brought under the Family
Code.
iii) Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful
detainer.
iv) Actions and proceedings involving the appointment or
termination of a probate guardian or conservator.
v) Actions or proceedings under the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11
AB 1127
Page 3
(commencing with Section 15600) of Part 3 of Division 9
of the Welfare and Institutions Code).
7)Specifies that the pilot courts shall develop a methodology
for deploying available interpreter resources and funds if
needed. Pilot courts shall 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 and informed that interpreter services are
available. A pilot court shall not be obligated to provide
services under this section that are not funded by this pilot
project.
8)Requires that interpreters shall be certified or registered
pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 68560) of
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Government Code. Subdivisions (c)
and (d) of Section 755 shall apply to proceedings described in
this section.
9)Specifies that the pilot project shall terminate on July 1,
2017.
10)Requires that on or before September 1, 2014, the Judicial
Council and its advisory bodies shall submit an interim report
to the Legislature, which shall include the status of its
efforts and completion date for the Language Access Plan.
11)Requires that on or before July 1, 2018, the Judicial Council
shall report to the Legislature its findings and
recommendations based on the experiences of the model pilot
project and specifies issues to be addressed in that report.
12)Establishes a sunset date of January 1, 2020.
The Senate amendments transform the previously proposed task
force into a working group, revise the mission of that group
from developing a language access plan to advising the Judicial
Council regarding best practices and making the specified
recommendations described above, delete the obligation to
develop a language access plan and instead create a pilot
project for the provision of interpreters in civil matters.
AB 1127
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)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
interpreter needs specific to the pilot counties.
2)Annual costs potentially in excess of $100,000 (General Fund*)
through January 1, 2019, for the Judicial Council to establish
and facilitate operations and activities of the working group.
3)One-time cost to the Judicial Council to complete and submit
the report evaluating the pilot project to the Legislature by
July 1, 2018.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
COMMENTS : In policy guidance issued August 16, 2010, and in a
significant number of enforcement actions in recent years, the
United States Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) has made it clear
that language access in the courts is a required 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, U.S. 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.)
According to supporters and independent research, it seems clear
that the judicial branch has far to go in expanding the
provision of court interpreters, as required by existing law.
While the courts have endeavored to make interpreters available
in some civil proceedings, and have undoubtedly struggled with
AB 1127
Page 5
some funding reductions in recent years, the assignment of
interpreters in civil cases currently appears to be largely if
not entirely left to the discretion of individual judges and
interpreter coordinators in local courts. If a judge requires
that an interpreter be provided, and is willing to wait until
one is available, an interpreter may be assigned. On the other
hand, if the judge is willing to go forward without an
interpreter, or to simply use a family member or other party who
is generally not appropriate or qualified for the challenging
task of interpreting, no interpreter is provided. Approaching
the problem in such an unsystematic manner is not likely to
satisfy the needs of court users or the meet the obligations of
civil rights laws. Although there is no apparent legal or other
impediment to implementing the needed reforms, whether or not
this bill becomes law, the purpose of the bill is to take an
initial concrete step toward that goal in a more deliberate
fashion and with greater focus by establishing a working group
and pilot project to begin addressing the greatest needs.
The legislation does not specifically direct how the first 75%
of the pilot funds are to be expended. However it is understood
that the funds dedicated by this bill will not be adequate to
meet the full scope of the need, and it is therefore expected
that priority will be given to parties who indigent and
therefore least able to afford the expense of a private
interpreter, and to those cases that present the most critical
human needs, such as described in the bill. For the same reason
it is likewise believed that the pilot program will include
courts where the needs are demonstrably greatest, including Los
Angeles.
In any event, further inaction on this fundamental issue of
access to justice may subject the state to federal enforcement
action or to a private lawsuit under cognate state law. Just as
importantly, the courts simply cannot perform their judicial
function effectively if judges and other court personnel are
incapable of adequately understanding the parties, and if the
parties are unable to understand court orders and instructions.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
AB 1127
Page 6
"This bill requires the Judicial Council to establish a working
group to develop what are being termed "best practices" for
providing interpreters in civil court proceedings and further to
conduct a pilot project to implement those practices.
"The Judicial Council already has authority to establish a pilot
project and has two excellent advisory committees working to
develop a language access plan for our courts."
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0002908