BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 597 (Lara)
As Amended April 15, 2013
Hearing Date: April 23, 2013
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Legal Aid: Court Interpreters
DESCRIPTION
This bill would create 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.
This bill would require the Judicial Council to create a working
group, as specified, and to report to the Legislature its
findings and recommendations based on the experiences of the
pilot program by September 1, 2017. This bill would also make
various findings and declarations and would sunset on January 1,
2018.
BACKGROUND
Throughout the last decade, the California Commission on Access
to Justice (CCATJ) has released 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.
(more)
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 2 of ?
In light of its findings, CCATJ has recommended the state: (1)
adopt a comprehensive language access policy for courts; (2)
develop specific recommendations for court officials and staff
to implement that policy; (3) reevaluate the system for training
and certifying interpreters; (4) evaluate the role of lawyers,
bar associations, legal services programs, law schools, and law
libraries; and (5) compile existing data and conduct further
research. (CCATJ Language Barriers to Justice in California
Executive Summary
< http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/accessJustice/2005_
Language-Barriers_Executive-Summary.7.2.12.pdf > [as of Apr. 13,
2013] at pp. 3-4.)
Since at least 1992, the 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); in fact, a similar statement existed in earlier
versions of this same section since the section was first
enacted in 1978.)
Existing 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. The law
does not provide a court interpreter for other parties in civil
matters who are not proficient in English, such as for those
whom primarily speak Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, or a
variety of other languages. 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. This bill is intended to go
some way towards addressing the need for interpreters in civil
matters.
This bill, sponsored by the California Federation of
Interpreters, would require the Judicial Council to establish a
pilot program to provide certified and registered court
interpreters in civil proceedings in up to five courts, as
specified, starting July 1, 2014. This bill would require the
pilot courts to provide interpreters first, to parties appearing
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 3 of ?
in forma pauperis (a phrase indicating the permission given by a
court to an indigent person to initiate a legal action without
having to pay for court fees or costs due to his or her lack of
financial resources) who do not proficiently speak or understand
the English language in specified actions or proceedings, and
then-if there is sufficient funding and interpreter resources
available-in other actions or proceedings or in matters in which
the party is not appearing in forma pauperis. Among other
things, the bill would require Judicial Council to report to the
Legislature its findings and recommendations on or before
September 1, 2017 and would sunset on January 1, 2018.
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. Section 2000d, et seq.; Gov. Code Sec.
11135.)
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. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 14.)
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 provides that nothing in
this section prohibits a court from providing an unofficial
translation of a court order issued pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 527.6 and 527.8 (which pertain 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 pursuant to Sections 527.6 and
527.8 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
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 4 of ?
that does not speak or understand English sufficiently to
comprehend the proceedings or give testimony. (Code Civ. Proc.
Sec. 116.550(c).)
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. (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.
(Evid. Code Sec. 755(a).) Existing law provides that this
requirement is contingent upon federal funding. (Evid. Code
Sec. 755(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 requires, 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 be sworn to decipher or
translate the writing. (Evid. Code Sec. 753(a).)
Existing law requires specified state agencies, boards, and
commissions to provide language assistance in adjudicative
proceedings. (Gov. Code Sec. 11435.15)
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
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 5 of ?
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).)
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.
(Gov. Code Sec. 68092.)
This bill would require the Judicial Council to establish a
working group, on or before June 1, 2014, to review, identify,
and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil
actions and proceedings. The working group, in developing the
best practices, must consider ways to maximize the use of
existing resources, calendaring issues, and other practices that
will assist courts to deploy interpreters effectively in civil
proceedings. The best practices must also include training
guidelines to be utilized by the courts participating in the
pilot project to ensure that court interpreters receive training
necessary to be incompliance with the pilot project
requirements, as specified.
This bill would specify that the composition of the working
group must include, among others, representatives of legal
organizations representing individuals with limited English
proficiency.
This bill would require the Judicial Council to select up to
five courts to provide interpreters in civil proceedings, as
specified, commencing on July 1, 2014. The pilot courts must be
selected from among those participating in the working group
established by Judicial Council, as specified.
This bill would require that the initial pilot courts
participate in the pilot project until June 30, 2016. The
Judicial Council, in consultation with the pilot courts, would
be required to consider whether a pilot court should continue
participating in the project and whether to select another court
or additional courts to join the project. This bill would
further require the courts selected to join the project shall
participate for three years, or another duration determined by
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 6 of ?
Judicial Council, in consultation with the pilot courts.
This bill would state that the pilot project shall be conducted
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.
This bill would require the pilot courts to provide interpreters
as follows:
To any party proceeding in forma pauperis who is present and
who does not proficiently speak or understand the English
language, as specified, in the following types of actions and
proceedings:
o actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (relating to temporary restraining
orders and injunctions prohibiting harassment and unlawful
violence or credible threats of violence cases);
o actions and proceedings brought under the Family Code;
o actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer;
o actions and proceedings involving the appointment or
termination of a probate guardian or conservator; and
o actions or proceedings under the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, as specified.
In any other civil actions or proceedings or in matters in
which the party is not appearing in forma pauperis if there is
sufficient funding and interpreter resources available to meet
all the interpretation needs in the actions and proceedings
above.
This bill would also require:
The pilot courts to develop a methodology for deploying
available interpreter resources, including, but not limited
to, funds allocated specifically for interpreters.
The interpreters to be certified or registered, and specified
sections of the Evidence Code (generally prohibiting
commencement of proceedings without the presence of the
interpreter or the presence of any other person to assist a
party) shall apply.
This bill would prohibit its provisions from being construed to
negate or limit any right to an interpreter in a civil action or
proceeding otherwise provided by state or federal law, or from
being construed to alter the right of an individual to an
interpreter in criminal, juvenile, and other specified
proceedings.
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 7 of ?
This bill would prohibit a reduction in staffing or compromise
in quality of interpreting services in criminal, juvenile, or
other types of matters in which interpreters are provided, as a
result of the bill.
This bill would require that the Judicial Council report to the
Legislature its findings and recommendations, as specified, on
or before September 1, 2017. Among other things, the report
shall also describe, to the extent possible, the impact of the
availability of interpreters on access to justice and on court
administration and efficiency.
This bill would specify that nothing in the bill shall limit or
restrict courts from providing interpreters in civil proceedings
when those services are already being provided or in matters in
which the judicial officer deems it is necessary to appoint an
interpreter.
This bill would specify that nothing in this bill shall alter or
negate the applications of specified laws governing the
employment of court interpreters.
This bill would sunset on January 1, 2018.
This bill would make various legislative findings and
declarations.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
The landscape for language access standards nationwide is
changing due to the Department of Justice enforcement of
language access requirements under federal civil rights laws.
Federal regulations state [that] "state court recipients of
federal funds must provide language access to individuals with
limited English proficiency in all case types for court
proceedings and services outside courtrooms."
California's statutes, policies and practices do not comply
with federal standards. Instead, language access law consists
of a patchwork of statutes, rules and policies that are
confusing and contradictory. Interpretations of existing law
have resulted in inconsistent access from county to county and
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 8 of ?
courtroom to courtroom.
This lack of uniformity means that many courts are not
providing interpreters; thereby putting many vulnerable
Californians at a severe disadvantage and unfair access to our
court system.
[This bill] seeks to improve access to California's court
system by ensuring that limited English speakers have court
interpreters present for civil cases. People in California
with limited English proficiency who seek access to justice in
the courts are not provided interpreters in many civil cases -
these are cases that affect fundamental rights, such as
housing, child custody and consumer disputes. Additionally,
language access needs outside of courtrooms are not being
fully met through the court system for services and programs
related to court proceedings. This well-recognized problem
means that vulnerable populations do not receive equal
treatment under the law in California.
SB 597 establishes a pilot project where [the] Judicial
Council would select up to five courts to provide court
interpreters in all court proceedings and court services [ . .
. ] for a period of two years. The pilot project includes a
plan for collection of comprehensive data on language access
needs in the pilot courts, identification of persons in need
of services and documentation of services provided during the
pilot project. All of the information will be reported to the
Judicial Council and the Legislature. [As a result,] SB 597
will determine the need for interpreter services in court
proceeding[s] and ensure that we are taking the necessary
steps to provide all Californians with equal access to our
court system.
2. The availability of court interpreters in civil matters is
an access to justice issue which is complicated by budgetary
cuts to the Judicial Branch in recent years
This bill would create a pilot project to address critical
access to justice issues surrounding the availability of
qualified court interpreters in civil proceedings for people who
speak limited to no English. Specifically, this bill would
create 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
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 9 of ?
need for additional interpreter resources and funding to provide
interpreters in civil matters on a statewide basis.
Non-English or limited-English speakers arguably face a unique
challenge to accessing justice, particularly if they rely on the
courts for a variety of services that they cannot afford to
provide to themselves. Namely, even if the courts were to once
again receive sufficient funding to retain staff, keep their
courthouse doors open, and provide free legal assistance to
those in need, there would remain yet another fundamental
barrier between a non-English or limited-English speaker and
justice: language.
While hard work and practice can help some to speak the language
conversationally, the ability to proficiently express oneself in
courtrooms and in court documents, and the ability to understand
what is being said in those settings, may be an unattainable for
a person who has spent a significant portion of their lives in
another country. In this way, the language barrier arguably can
operate similar to a physical disability, insofar as it can in
actuality quite often be immutable for large segments of the
population.
This is somewhat compounded by the fact that the court system,
while in English, arguably operates on a language of its own and
can, as a result, be extremely difficult to navigate even for a
native speaker of English. Even those fluent in English often
require translators of sorts- attorneys. In fact, for those
representing themselves, the courts recognize the need to
provide legal aid and other services to ensure that access is
meaningful for those groups because it can be daunting for a
layperson. Even for a limited-English or non-English speaker
with an attorney it is virtually impossible to participate in
court proceedings without proper assistance of someone who
understands and speaks both languages with adequate proficiency.
Current California laws provide for interpreters in civil cases
in very limited circumstances, including for those with hearing
disabilities, but not for those who are not proficient in
English. (See Evid. Code Sec. 754; see also Evid. Code Sec.
752(a); Gov. Code Sec. 11435.15.) "As a result," as noted by
the California Commission on Access to Justice report, "the
courts often must rely on untrained interpreters - in some civil
and family law cases, even family members or children - which
can lead to faulty translations and threaten the court's ability
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 10 of ?
to ensure justice." (CCATJ Language Barriers to Justice in
California Executive Summary (hereinafter, CCATJ Report)
< http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/accessJustice/2005_
Language-Barriers_Executive-Summary.7.2.12.pdf > [as of Apr. 13,
2013] at p. 2; see also, for example, Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
116.550(c).) As a matter of public policy, such translations
raise significant concerns because faulty translations can have
a direct and adverse impact on the outcome of a proceeding.
Yet, without court-funded interpreter services or sufficient
money to pay for a private interpreter, the alternative of
allowing for no translation assistance is arguably worse.
Regardless, having inadequate translation services of any sort
can easily be devastating, particularly in cases involving
family law (such as child custody matters), property law (such
as eviction actions), or employment law (such as wage and hour
cases), among others.
On the other hand, it is important to note that the courts, too,
are placed in a nearly impossible situation when funding is
reduced, to choose between shutting down courtrooms and
providing additional services. (See CCAJT Report at p. 2.)
Though the access to justice issues facing limited or
non-English speakers has been a subject of study for at least
the last decade by the CCATJ, California courts face a variety
of access issues that in recent years due to budgetary cuts in
recent years.
The pilot project created by this bill, while only temporary for
a limited number of courts and cases, could feasibly provide a
roadmap of how to find a balanced approach to these competing
issues and improve access to justice for this particularly
vulnerable population. The sponsor of this bill, California
Federation of Interpreters, notes that:
[ . . . ] Funds appropriated by the [L]egislature for court
interpreter services have not been used to their fullest
capacity and as a result, over the years, a surplus has grown.
This pattern of unspent funds should not be taken to mean that
the actual need for interpreter services is being fully met,
or that the funds are not needed.
The courts and Judicial Council have, in the past, cited
insufficient funding and have made language access to the
civil courts contingent on receiving new funding. While there
is no question that new money will be required to fully cover
interpreter needs, the use of existing resources and
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 11 of ?
efficiencies must be considered and explored since this could
significantly mitigate costs. Use of the unspent funds will
move California closer to meeting language access needs.
3.Prioritizing the civil actions in which court interpreters
would be provided
This bill would set priorities for the provision of interpreter
services among various parties and types of civil actions and
proceedings. First, the pilot courts are required to provide
court interpreters to parties appearing in forma pauperis in
specified types of actions and proceedings, namely: actions and
proceedings involving harassment under the Code of Civil
Procedure; actions and proceedings brought under the Family
Code; actions and proceedings involving the appointment or
termination of a probate guardian or conservator; and actions or
proceedings under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil
Protection Act, as specified. Then, the pilot courts are
required to provide interpreters in other civil actions or
proceedings or in matters in which the party is not appearing in
forma pauperis, if there is sufficient funding and interpreter
resources available to meet all the interpretation needs of the
actions and proceedings listed above.
Staff notes that "forma pauperis" is a phrase that indicates the
permission given by a court to an indigent person to initiate a
legal action without having to pay for court fees or costs due
to his or her lack of financial resources. As a matter of public
policy, given the limited resources and interpreters available
to be provided by the court, it appears justified to prioritize
the provision of interpreters to those persons who do not have
the financial ability to pay for interpreters themselves over
other parties. While it does seem possible that there will be
other parties who may not have the financial ability to provide
for their own interpreter (but who do not qualify to appear in
forma pauperis), parties appearing in forma pauperis are
arguably the most readily identifiable group that will be unable
to overcome the language barrier without the courts' assistance.
It is, therefore, important to secure their access to
interpreters first.
4. This bill was recently amended to include a working group
and efforts are ongoing to address funding concerns
This bill would additionally require the Judicial Council to
create a working group, on or before June 1, 2014, to review,
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 12 of ?
identify and develop best practices to provide interpreters in
civil actions and proceedings that shall be used to carry out
the pilot project created by this bill. In developing best
practices, this bill would require the working group to consider
ways to maximize the use of existing resources, calendaring
issues, and other practices that will assist courts in deploying
interpreters effectively in civil proceedings. This bill would
also require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature
its findings and recommendations based on the experiences of the
pilot program on or before September 1, 2017. (As discussed
further in Comment 6 below, in order to provide the Legislature
sufficient time to evaluate those findings and recommendations,
the bill should be amended to require that the Legislature
receive the report one year prior to the sunset date.)
Committee staff notes this bill is, in fact, similar to a prior
bill passed by this Legislature-AB 3050 (Assembly Judiciary
Committee, 2008). AB 3050 would have, among other things, also
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. That bill also 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. AB 3050 was
ultimately vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, not on the
substance of the bill but, rather, because he was only signing
bills of the highest priority due to the delay in passing a
budget that year.
While the Judicial Council was supportive of AB 3050, there are
some differences between this bill and AB 3050 and, accordingly,
the Judicial Council is in a "support if amended" position on
this bill. The Judicial Council writes that it "remains in
support of the concept of piloting the provision of interpreter
services in civil proceedings, but cannot support SB 597 unless
a clear funding source is identified, the pilot courts
responsibility to comply with the requirements of the pilot are
limited to the amount of that funding and the available pool of
interpreters, and the pilot contains language specifically
authorizing the use of technology in providing the required
services. "
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 13 of ?
On the issue of technology, unlike AB 3050, this bill does not
expressly require that the working group consider the effective
use of technology in developing best practices. However, staff
notes that the effective use of technology would theoretically
be encompassed by the requirement that the working group
consider ways "to maximize the use of existing resources [ . . .
] or other practices that will assist courts to deploy
interpreters effectively in civil proceedings."
The larger issue raised by the Judicial Council is the
importance of clarifying the funding source for the pilot
project. In light of budget cuts to the courts in recent years,
identifying that funding is important to prevent the redirection
of funds from other services to this project.
If this bill were to be approved by this Committee, the author
and sponsor have expressed to Committee staff that they will
continue to work with Judicial Council to amend the bill to
include language that the project, including the cost of
administration and preparation of the report to the Legislature,
shall be funded from the unspent funds accrued from prior year
appropriations for interpreter services in the Budget Act. The
Judicial Council adds that, "[t]o make the pilots workable in
the current resource limited times, language must be added to
limit the responsibility of the pilot courts to provide
interpreter services to those which can be provided within the
funding amount, and to acknowledge that courts may not be able
to provide a qualified interpreter in some matters due to a
shortage of interpreters." Committee staff also notes that if
such language were added to the bill, it could arguably reduce
the possibility that funds would have to be redirected from
other services to this pilot project.
5. Suggested Amendments
The following amendment is suggested to clarify one of the
bill's findings and declarations:
Suggested amendment
On page 2, line 24-28, strike "People with limited English
proficiency are also often members of groups whose cultural
traits or economic circumstances make them more likely to be
subjected to legal problems, in part because perpetrators
recognize their victims' limited ability to access judicial
protection" and insert, "People with limited English
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 14 of ?
proficiency are also more likely to be in need of court
intervention to protect their legal rights, in part because
perpetrators capitalize on the particular vulnerability of
this class of persons that is posed by various barriers that
stand between them and judicial protection, including both
economic and language barriers."
Also, this bill contains a January 1, 2018 sunset date for both
the working group and the provisions that relate to the
authorization for, and requirements of, the pilot project. The
bill, however, requires that the initial pilot courts
participate in the pilot project until June 30, 2016, at which
point the Judicial Council, in consultation with the pilot
courts, is required to consider whether a pilot court will
continue and whether to select another court or additional
courts to join the project. Those courts selected to join the
project would be required to participate for three years, or
another duration determined by the Judicial Council in
consultation with the pilot courts. As a result, it is
seemingly possible that a pilot court could be added to the
project, for example, on July 1, 2016, and whose three year term
would expire on July 1, 2019.
This inadvertent discrepancy appears to be because this bill is
modeled, to a degree, upon AB 3050 (Assembly Judiciary
Committee, 2008) but that bill did not contain a sunset date for
these provisions. The following amendment would address this
discrepancy:
Suggested amendment :
On page 7, line 10, strike "2018" and insert "2020"
Accordingly, the deadline for the proposed Judicial Council
report to the Legislature should also be amended. Currently,
this bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the
Legislature its findings and recommendations based on the
experiences of the pilot program on or before September 1, 2017.
Committee staff notes that the Legislature should be given at
least one year to evaluate the report before the sunset expires.
With the sunset now having been moved to January 1, 2020 per
the above suggestion, the proposed deadline for the Judicial
Council report to the Legislature should be moved to January 1,
2019, as follows:
Suggested amendment :
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 15 of ?
On page 6, line 22, strike "September 1, 2017" and insert
"January 1, 2019"
Finally, the following amendment would correct a drafting error
in the bill with respect to the sunset date for the working
group provisions, and incorporate the January 1, 2020 sunset
date discussed above:
Technical amendment
On page 7, line 10, strike "2018" and insert "2020"
Support : Asian American Center for Advancing Justice; Asian
Americans for Civil Rights and Equality; California Immigrant
Policy Center; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation;
Judicial Council of California (support if funded and amended)
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Federation of Interpreters
Related Pending Legislation : AB 1127 (Chau, 2013) would, on or
before March 1, 2014, require the Judicial Council to establish
the California Language Access Task Force, which would be
responsible for developing a comprehensive statewide Language
Access Plan for use by courts to address the needs of
limited-English-proficient individuals, as specified. The bill
is currently in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and is set to
be heard on April 30, 2015.
Prior Legislation :
AB 3050 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2008) See Comment 4.
AB 1726 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, 2007), virtually
identical to AB 2302 below, would have required the courts to
provide interpreters when needed in family law, domestic
violence and other civil matters, as specified. 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.
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 16 of ?
**************