BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1657|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1657
Author: Gomez (D), et al.
Amended: 6/15/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/24/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/19/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Courts: interpreters
SOURCE : Judicial Council
DIGEST : This bill expressly prohibits a party from being
charged a fee for the provision of a court interpreter and
clarifies 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. This bill also provides that until
sufficient funds are appropriated to provide an interpreter to
every party who needs one, interpreters must initially be
provided in accordance with priorities set forth by this bill.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a person unable to
understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an
interpreter throughout the proceedings.
CONTINUED
AB 1657
Page
2
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. Existing law requires the Judicial
Council to make available to all courts translations of domestic
violence protective order forms for protective orders provided
pursuant to Sections 527.6 and 527.8 in languages other than
English, as it deems appropriate.
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.
Existing law requires each small claims court to make reasonable
efforts to maintain and make available to the parties a list of
interpreters, as specified, and requires the small claims court
to postpone a hearing at least once to allow the party to obtain
an interpreter.
Existing law 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.
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.
Existing law requires that court interpreters' and translators'
fees or other compensation be paid (1) in criminal cases, by the
court, and (2) in civil cases, by the litigants, as specified.
This bill 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.
CONTINUED
AB 1657
Page
3
However, until sufficient funds are appropriated to provide an
interpreter to every party who needs one, this bill requires
that interpreters initially be provided in accordance with
specified priorities.
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.
This bill repeals Evidence Code Section 755, and instead enacts
Section 756 of the Evidence Code requiring the Judicial Council,
to the extent required by other state or federal laws, 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 for the purpose of interpreting the proceedings
in a language the party understands, and assisting
communications between the party, his/her attorney, and the
court.
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, pursuant to the provision
above, shall be prioritized by case type by each court in the
following order:
1.Actions and proceedings:
A. In which a protective order has been granted or is being
sought, and for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal
separation of the parties in which a protective order has
been granted or is being sought;
B. Relating to a petition that alleges that a person has
inflicted or threatened violence against the petitioner, or
stalked the petitioner, or acted or spoken in any other
manner that has placed the petitioner in reasonable fear of
violence, and that seeks a protective or restraining order
CONTINUED
AB 1657
Page
4
or injunction restraining stalking or future violence or
threats of violence; and
C. For physical abuse or neglect under the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.
1.Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer.
2.Actions and proceedings to terminate parental rights.
3.Actions and proceedings relating to conservatorship or
guardianship, including the appointment or termination of a
probate guardian or conservator.
4.Actions and proceedings by a parent to obtain sole legal or
physical custody of a child or rights to visitation.
5.All other actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure relating to protective orders or the
Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.
6.All other actions and proceedings related to family law.
7.All other civil actions or proceedings.
This bill requires, if funds are not available, courts to
provide an interpreter to every party that meets the standard of
eligibility, that preference be given for parties proceeding in
forma pauperis pursuant to existing law in any civil action or
proceeding described in provisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or
(8) above.
This bill authorizes courts to provide an interpreter to a party
outside the priority order above when a qualified interpreter is
present and available at the court location and no higher
priority action is taking place at that location during the
period of time for which the interpreter has already been
compensated.
This bill prohibits a party from being charged a fee for the
provision of a court interpreter.
This bill requires the court, in seeking reimbursement for court
interpreter services, to identify to the Judicial Council the
CONTINUED
AB 1657
Page
5
case types for which the interpretation to be reimbursed was
provided.
This bill provides that its provisions 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.
This bill also provides that its provisions 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.
Background
Both federal and state law prohibit any person, 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, from being
unlawfully excluded from participation in, being denied the
benefits of, or being 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.
California is home to a vast number of non-English and
limited-English speakers. Dating back to at least 1992, the
Legislature has statutorily 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." 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 limited-English proficiency.
Meaningful access to the courts for these individuals, as
required under law, hinges on the services of court reporters
who possess the requisite skills to accurately translate legal
CONTINUED
AB 1657
Page
6
proceedings between the court, the attorney, and the non-English
speaker.
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 and
requires that the courts provide non- or limited-English
individuals with court interpreters in criminal matters, the law
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.
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. The bill's implementation
would only have been contingent upon appropriation of funding,
as specified. The bill was vetoed by Governor Brown.
SB 597 (Lara, 2013) 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. The bill
died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Near-term increase in expenditures from the Trial Court Trust
CONTINUED
AB 1657
Page
7
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 (*Trial Court Trust 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 (*Trial Court
Trust 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 federal
Department of Justice letter.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/14/14)
Judicial Council (source)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Immigrant Policy Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Judicial Council, sponsor of this
bill, writes:
Courts must provide interpreters to non-English speaking
defendants in all criminal cases, including juvenile delinquency
cases and traffic cases. In civil cases, however, interpreters
must be provided in some cases, are provided by some courts, and
are not in others. Statutory and case law require courts to
provide interpreters in juvenile dependency cases, certain
family law cases where the parties are indigent, and in some
small claims cases where no volunteer or other free interpreters
are available. In other cases, whether or not an interpreter is
provided can depend on the size of the county, the availability
of funds, and the local rules of the specific court.
CONTINUED
AB 1657
Page
8
These local rules, coupled with various interpretations of
Government Code requirements, have led to some courts providing
civil interpreters in some cases where they are not explicitly
required, and other courts not providing them. The income of
the parties can impact the ultimate decision as well. The
Federal Department of Justice believes that courts are already
required to provide these services. Without a clarification in
the Government Code, however, individual courts are left to
their own devices to decide how to interpret the Government
Code's requirements. It is in the interest of Californians
statewide to have a consistent application of the Government
Code in every region of the state, which AB 1657 will provide.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/19/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Olsen, Pan,
Patterson, Perea, John A. Pérez, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk,
Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,
Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Donnelly, Mansoor, Nazarian, Nestande,
Vacancy
AL:e 8/15/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED