BILL ANALYSIS
AB 663
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 663 (Jones) - As Amended: April 29, 2009
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a pilot project to provide court
interpreters in specified civil proceedings, and makes it
unlawful for an entity to use the term "legal aid" unless
referring to a nonprofit organization providing legal services
to the poor without charge. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Judicial Council to:
a) Establish, before September 1, 2010, a working group to
review, identify, and develop best practices for providing
court interpreters in civil cases.
b) Select up to five courts to participate in a pilot
project, from July 1, 2011 until June 30, 2014, to provide
interpreters in civil proceeds as specified.
c) Report its findings and recommendations based on the
pilot project by September 1, 2013.
d) Assess the need for court interpreters in court
proceedings and report its findings and recommendations to
the Legislature by July 1, 2016 and every five years
thereafter. This revises and recasts a current needs
assessment requirement that will sunset on January 1, 2011.
e) Enter into a master agreement or agreements with one or
more venders to provide for telephone appearances in civil
cases, as permitted by law.
2)Requires the agreements above to require an appearance fee in
an amount set by the Judicial Council and requires the vendor
AB 663
Page 2
to pay the state $15 for every telephone appearance, with the
revenue to be used by the Judicial Council to pay the costs of
the pilot court interpreter program.
FISCAL EFFECT
Estimated annual revenues to the Trial Court Trust Fund from the
$15 fee are $2.3 million. The Judicial Council intends to use
these revenues to cover the workload described in (1) above.
The council indicates that the court interpreter pilot is
scalable in that it allows increases in the types of cases and
parties served, thus providing flexibility in allocating the
resources made available through the fee increase.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The author states, "Court interpreters should be
available to all Californians who need them, just as they are
for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, in order to
protect the fair and efficient administration of justice,
allow parties to be understood by the court when they are not
represented by lawyers, encourage trust and confidence in the
judicial system and promote respect for the rule of law and
compliance with court orders."
2)Prior Legislation . In 2008, AB 3050 (Judiciary Committee),
which was substantially similar to this bill, was one of
numerous bills summarily vetoed by the governor without a
stated objection.
In 2007, AB 1726 (Judiciary Committee), contained court
interpreter provisions similar to this bill but mandated
interpreters for all counties, and did not include a financing
mechanism. AB 1726 was held on this committee's Suspense
File.
In 2006, AB 2302 (Judiciary Committee), which was
substantially similar to AB 1726, was vetoed. The governor,
while expressing support for the policy, argued that the
state's structural budget deficit did not allow for expansion
of state programs.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081