BILL ANALYSIS
AB 663
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 663 (Jones)
As Amended April 29, 2009
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 7-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Monning | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight, Nielsen |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Implements recommendations of the California
Commission on Access to Justice (Access Commission).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes a model pilot program to be developed by the
Judicial Council (JC) for providing court interpreters in
important civil matters not currently served.
2)Combats fraudulent and deceptive misuse of the term "legal
aid" unless the entity is a bona fide nonprofit organization
that provides civil legal services for the poor without charge
by prohibiting such conduct and providing a mechanism by which
injured consumers and legal aid organizations may obtain
relief.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, estimated annual revenues to the Trial Court Trust
Fund from the $15 fee are $2.3 million. JC intends to use these
revenues to cover the workload described above. JC 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.
AB 663
Page 2
COMMENTS : The author states that this bill implements key
recommendations of the non-partisan Access Commission to Justice
to promote equal access to legal and judicial services for
low-income Californians.
The bill establishes a pilot program to be developed by the JC
for providing court interpreters in important civil matters not
currently served, as recommended by the Access Commission. As
with a substantively identical measure in 2005 (AB 2302), the
author states, "Nearly seven million Californians cannot access
the courts without significant language assistance, cannot
understand pleadings, forms or other legal documents, cannot
communicate with judges, clerks or other court staff, and cannot
understand or participate meaningfully in court proceedings -
much less effectively present their cases - without a qualified
interpreter. 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. For Californians
who are not proficient in English, the prospect of navigating
the legal system is daunting, especially for the growing number
of parties in family court and other cases who do not have
access to legal services and therefore have no choice but to
represent themselves in court - a virtually impossible task for
people who are unable to understand the proceedings."
The Governor also vetoed a prior measure by the author last year
(AB 3050), which was identical to this bill with respect to the
civil interpreter pilot proposal. The Governor's veto message
reflected no substantive or fiscal objections to the bill, but
stated: "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."
The U.S. Constitution entitles criminal defendants with limited
English proficiency to an interpreter supplied by the court.
The California Constitution likewise explicitly 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, 14.) While there is no corresponding
AB 663
Page 3
constitutional right in ordinary civil proceedings, observers
have noted that there may be state and federal statutory
obligations to provide a court-appointed interpreter where the
failure to do so would deny full and equal access to the courts
on the basis of language, which has long been recognized as a
characteristic of prohibited discrimination on the basis of
national origin.
Although JC apparently does not collect hard data on language
need or interpreter use in civil matters, it appears that the
courts have begun to provide interpreters in some civil matters
by making use of the pool of court employees and independent
contractors normally assigned to criminal matters. This
development has likely been compelled by the practical reality
of a large and growing number of Limited English Speaking (LEP)
residents.
In its groundbreaking 2002 report, entitled The Path to Equal
Justice, the Access Commission found that people with limited
English proficiency are among those most likely to need
assistance in accessing the courts, and least likely to receive
it. The report concluded that language services are essential
to equal access to justice. "Litigants with limited English
proficiency must receive assistance in order to fully understand
and participate in the judicial process. In many areas of the
state, a third or more of all litigants may lack fluency in
English. Particularly when they are self-represented, they
cannot hope for justice without the assistance of trained
interpreters and other services that can help them understand
and present their cases, and courts must have the ability to
provide adequate certified interpreters."
The Access Commission also noted that the lack of available
qualified interpreters often causes substantial delay and
disruption in court proceedings, which adds to the expense and
burden of litigation. "The manager of interpreter services for
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County estimated that more
than 40 proceedings are continued every day in that county
because a certified or registered interpreter is not available,
resulting in some 10,000 delayed proceedings per year." This
finding is confirmed by complaints reported to this Committee
indicating that civil matters needing an interpreter in downtown
Los Angeles family court departments can sometimes have access
to a Spanish interpreter if the parties and counsel wait until
AB 663
Page 4
one becomes available, often requiring lengthy delays and
continuances. But it is not only cases needing an interpreter
that are delayed. If an interpreter becomes available, all
other businesses in the court is reportedly put on hold while
the cases needing an interpreter are handled, causing costly
interruptions and delays and frustration in the cases that are
put aside.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001117