BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 1657 (Gomez) - Courts: interpreters.
Amended: June 15, 2014 Policy Vote: Judiciary 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 1657 would expressly prohibit a party from
being charged a fee for the provision of a court interpreter and
would require the Judicial Council to reimburse courts for court
interpreter services provided in civil actions and proceedings
to any party who is present in court and who does not
proficiently speak or understand the English language, as
specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Near-term increase in expenditures from the Trial Court
Trust Fund (General Fund*) likely in the millions of dollars
to reimburse courts for interpreters in civil proceedings.
Approximately $13 million in funds are available from prior
budget surpluses of the annual appropriation of $92.8
million for court interpreters.
Major future cost pressure in the millions to tens of
millions of dollars (General Fund*) annually to appropriate
funds to provide interpreters to every party who needs one
in all court proceedings statewide.
Ongoing reduction in fee revenues to the courts due to the
specific provision stating that a party shall not be charged
a fee for the provision of a court interpreter.
Unknown potential future loss of cost savings (General
Fund*) to the extent the provision of this measure that
prohibits a reduction in staffing restricts the ability of
courts to transition to the use of technology-based services
for interpreter services, such as video remote interpreting,
which was a recommended efficiency noted in the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) letter.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
Background: Existing state law requires a court interpreter in
AB 1657 (Gomez)
Page 1
civil cases for parties who are deaf or have a hearing
impairment that prevents them from speaking or understanding
English, however, current law does not require a court
interpreter for other parties in civil matters who are not
proficient in English. Likewise, existing law requires an
interpreter for witnesses who speak a language other than
English, but not for the parties in the case. Even though
existing law authorizes courts to assign interpreters already
employed for criminal and juvenile cases to civil cases (for a
fee) when their services are not otherwise required in criminal
or juvenile cases, interpreters in civil cases are not routinely
provided as a matter of right.
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 funds being made available as a result of a local public
entity and the Judicial Council applying to the state agency
that receives federal funds authorized pursuant to the federal
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). (Evidence Code § 755(e).)
Adequate access to interpreters for non-English or
limited-English proficient (LEP) speakers has been the subject
of several reports from the California Commission on Access to
Justice, as well as the subject of an investigation by the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in
February 2011. 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, the U.S. DOJ investigated the Los Angeles County
Superior Court (LASC) and the Judicial Council. As a result of
the investigation, the DOJ issued a letter dated May 22, 2013,
to the Chief Justice, Administrative Director of the Courts for
the AOC, and the Presiding Judge of LASC.
The letter indicated that several current policies, practices,
and procedures regarding the provision of language assistance
services in LASC appear to be inconsistent with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. The
letter provided observations and recommendations to help the
AB 1657 (Gomez)
Page 2
state achieve voluntary compliance, and stated the
inconsistencies with federal law should be addressed to ensure
that LEP individuals have meaningful access to court proceedings
and court operations.
http://www.calinterpreters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DOJ-Inv
estigation-171-12C-31-5-22-13-Letter-2.pdf
This bill seeks to address the need for court interpreters in
civil matters, and specifies that a court may provide an
interpreter in any civil action or proceeding at no cost to the
parties, regardless of the income of the parties.
Proposed Law: This bill would require, to the extent required by
other state or federal laws, the Judicial Council to reimburse
courts for court interpreter services provided in civil actions
and proceedings to any party who is present in court and who
does not proficiently speak or understand the English language,
as specified. In addition, this bill:
Provides that if sufficient funds are not appropriated
to provide an interpreter to every party that meets the
standard of eligibility, court interpreter services in
civil cases reimbursed by the Judicial Council shall be
prioritized by case type by each court in the following
order:
1. Actions and proceedings under the Uniform
Parentage Act, as specified, related to domestic
violence, for dissolution or nullity of marriage or
legal separation, and actions and proceedings for
physical abuse or neglect under the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.
2. Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful
detainer.
3. Actions and proceedings to terminate parental
rights.
4. Actions and proceedings relating to
conservatorship or guardianship, as specified.
5. Actions and proceedings by a parent or
guardian to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a
child or rights to visitation.
6. All other actions and proceedings relating to
elder abuse and dependent adult civil protection.
7. All other actions and proceedings related to
family law.
8. All other civil actions or proceedings.
AB 1657 (Gomez)
Page 3
Provides that if funds are not available to provide an
interpreter to every party that meets the standard of
eligibility, preference shall be given for parties
proceeding in forma pauperis, as specified.
Specifies that a party shall not be charged a fee for
the provision of a court reporter.
Requires a court to identify to the Judicial Council the
case types for which the interpretation to be reimbursed
was provided in seeking reimbursement for court interpreter
services.
Provides that this section shall not result in a
reduction in staffing or compromise the quality of
interpreting services in criminal, juvenile, or other types
of matters in which interpreters are provided.
Provides that this section shall not be construed to
alter, limit, or negate any right to an interpreter in a
civil action or proceeding otherwise provided by state or
federal law, or the right to an interpreter in criminal,
traffic, or other infraction, juvenile, or mental
competency actions or proceedings.
States legislative findings and declarations that it is
imperative that courts provide interpreters to all parties
who require one, and that both the legislative and judicial
branches of government continue in their joint commitment
to carry out this shared goal.
Provides that notwithstanding any other law, a court may
provide an interpreter in any civil action or proceeding at
no cost to the parties, regardless of the income of the
parties. However, until sufficient funds are appropriated
to provide an interpreter to every party who needs one,
interpreters shall initially be provided in accordance with
the priorities set forth in the bill as noted above.
Prior Legislation: AB 1127 (Chau) 2013 would have required 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 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 was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1127 without my signature. This
bill requires the Judicial Council to establish a working group
AB 1657 (Gomez)
Page 4
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.
SB 597 (Lara) 2013, similar to AB 3050 noted below, would have
created a pilot project to provide for interpreters in civil
proceedings in up to five courts, as specified. This bill was
held on the Suspense File of this Committee. Staff notes a
similar court interpreter pilot project was approved by the
Legislature through the 2013-14 Budget Conference Committee,
however, it was not included as part of the final enacted Budget
Act.
AB 3050 (Assembly Committee on Judiciary) 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. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has
forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of
the year's legislative session. Given the delay, I am only
signing bills that are the highest priority for California. This
bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this
time.
Staff Comments: This bill will result in near-term increases in
expenditures from the Trial Court Trust Fund (General Fund)
likely in the millions of dollars to reimburse courts for court
interpreters in civil proceedings in order of the list of
priorities specified in the bill. Staff notes that approximately
$13 million in funds are available from prior budget surpluses
from the annual appropriation of $92.8 million for court
interpreter services.
This bill provides that until sufficient funds are appropriated
to provide an interpreter to every party who needs one,
interpreters shall initially be provided in accordance with the
AB 1657 (Gomez)
Page 5
priorities set forth in the bill as noted above. This provision
creates major future cost pressure of an unknown amount but
potentially in excess of tens of millions of dollars (General
Fund) annually to appropriate funds to provide interpreters to
every party who needs one in all civil court actions and
proceedings statewide. Additionally, the specific provision
prohibiting a party from being charged a fee for the provision
of a court interpreter will result in an ongoing reduction in
fee revenues to those courts that have historically charged a
fee for this service.
In its fifth recommendation towards voluntary compliance, the
U.S. DOJ letter noted:
"While working to ensure that interpreters are provided to
litigants in all civil matters in LASC, the AOC and the LASC
should clarify that ability to waive interpreter fees for
indigent litigants with, and ensure training for this issue for,
judicial officers and court staff. The AOC should also arrange
for fee waiver forms into the most common languages other than
English and Spanish, including Chinese, Korean, Armenian, and
Vietnamese." This recommendation seems to infer that charging a
fee for interpreter services is allowable, as long as fees are
waived for indigent litigants. At the time of this analysis,
staff is pending clarification on this issue. To the extent it
is federally allowable to charge a fee for interpreter services,
staff recommends an amendment to revise the prohibition on
charging a fee in all cases as currently stated in the bill to
be consistent with federal law.
This bill provides that its provisions shall not result in a
reduction in staffing in matters in which interpreters are
provided. To the extent this measure restricts the ability of
courts to transition to the use of technology-based services for
interpreter services, such as video remote interpreting, which
was one of the recommended efficiencies noted in the U.S. DOJ
letter, could result in potential future loss of cost savings to
the courts by restricting the ability of the courts to provide
these services in a manner that could improve and increase
access to language services in proceedings and operations.