BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 810 (Wagner)
As Amended May 5, 2011
Hearing Date: June 21, 2011
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Court: Translators
DESCRIPTION
This bill would revise and recast provisions relating to
interpreters and translators and delete obsolete language as a
result of trial court restructuring.
BACKGROUND
In 1996, SCA 4 (Lockyer, Resolution Ch. 56, Stats. 1996)
proposed a constitutional amendment that would provide for the
abolition of municipal courts within a county, and for the
establishment of a unified superior court for that county upon a
majority vote of superior court judges and a majority vote of
municipal court judges within the county. On June 2, 1998,
California voters approved Proposition 220, which provided for
the voluntary consolidation of superior court and municipal
court pursuant to SCA 4. As of February 2001, the courts in all
58 counties have unified.
Relatedly, in 1997, the Legislature enacted the
"Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997" which
provided that the state, as opposed to counties, was responsible
for the funding of trial court operations. (See AB 233
(Escutia, Ch. 850, Stats. 1997).) In 2000, the Legislature
commissioned the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to
review all affected statutes and to identify needed revisions.
(SB 2140, Burton, Ch. 1010, Stats. 2000; statutory deadline
removed by SB 1316, Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 784, Stats.
2002.) As a result of that work by the CLRC, the Legislature
(more)
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 2 of ?
has already enacted several measures to delete or revise
provisions rendered obsolete by trial court restructuring and
reform. (See Prior Legislation.)
Most recently, in December 2009, the CLRC issued a report
entitled, "Statutes made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring:
Part 5" (hereinafter "CLRC 2009 Report," or "2009 Report").
Commenting that "�o]ver the past decade, California's trial
court system has been dramatically restructured," causing
hundreds of sections of the California codes to become obsolete,
in whole or in part, the CLRC issued this report, as directed by
the Legislature, in order to "revise the codes to eliminate
material that became obsolete as a result of the trial court
restructuring." (CLRC 2009 Report,
< http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/Printed-Reports/Pub234-J1404.pdf >
pgs. 3-4 �as of June 13, 2011].) This most recent report
outlined further provisions that the CLRC recommended be
deleted, revised, or recast in light of the enactment of the
Trial Court Funding Act, including in sections that pertain to
the employment, assignment, and compensation of interpreters and
translators.
Last year, AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 212, Stats.
2010) enacted various recommendations pursuant to the 2009 CLRC
study, but did not make any revisions with regard to the
suggested recommendations to Government Code Sections 26806 and
69894.5, relating to the employment, assignment, and
compensation of interpreters and translators.
This bill, sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and
Election Officials (CACEO), seeks to generally enact the
remaining portions of the 2009 CLRC Report and revise and recast
many of the pertinent provisions related to interpreters and
translators, and delete otherwise obsolete language, as
recommended in the report. In line with those recommendations,
this bill would reference a constitutional requirement to
provide interpreters, remove remaining references to municipal
courts, update the reference to employment of officers and
attach�s by rule, and also delete outdated provisions related to
fees. This bill also would remove language in existing law
referencing counties of over 900,000 persons.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that a person unable to understand English
who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 3 of ?
throughout the proceedings. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 14.)
Existing law provides that in counties of over 900,000, the
county clerk may employ as many foreign language interpreters as
may be necessary to interpret in criminal cases in the superior
court, and in the juvenile court within the county, and to
translate documents intended for filing in any civil or criminal
action or proceeding or for recordation in the county recorder's
office. (Gov. Code Sec. 26806(a).)
Existing law requires the superior court clerk, whenever
interpreters are needed, to assign the interpreters so employed
to interpret in criminal and juvenile cases in the superior
court. Existing law also requires the clerk to assign
interpreters so employed in criminal cases in municipal courts,
when their services are needed. (Gov. Code Sec. 26806(b).)
Existing law permits the court clerk to also assign interpreters
so employed to interpret in civil cases in superior and
municipal courts when their services are not required in
criminal or juvenile cases. Existing law provides that when
interpreters are so assigned, they must collect from the
litigants the fee fixed by the court and deposit the same into
the county treasury. (Gov. Code Sec. 26806(c).)
Existing law requires interpreters so employed, when assigned to
do so by the court clerk, to translate documents to be recorded
or to be filed in any civil or criminal action or proceeding.
Existing law sets the fee to be collected for translating each
document as three dollars ($3) per folio for the first folio or
part thereof, and two cents ($0.02) for each word thereafter.
It provides that for preparing a carbon copy of such translation
at the time of preparing the original, the fee is twelve cents
($0.12) per folio or any part thereof. All such fees must be
deposited into the county treasury. (Gov. Code Sec. 26806(d).)
Existing law provides that the court may by rule employ and
assign officers or attach�s to perform the duties outlined in
Government Code Section 26806. (Gov. Code Sec. 69894.5.)
This bill would revise and recast certain provisions of existing
law relating to the employment, assignment, and compensation of
interpreters and translators that are currently located in
Government Code Section 26806, to Government Code Section
69894.5. Specifically, it would:
restate California's constitutional requirement that a person
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 4 of ?
unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a
right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings;
permit the clerk of the court to employ as many foreign
language interpreters as may be necessary to interpret cases
in the superior court, and to translate documents as may be
required, pursuant to the Trial Court Interpreter Employment
and Labor Relations Act Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section
71800) of Title 8;
provide that in addition to any other right to an interpreter,
the court clerk must, when interpreters are needed, assign
interpreters to interpret in criminal and juvenile delinquency
cases in the superior court; and
permit the court clerk to also assign interpreters to
interpret in civil cases in the superior court, provided that
an assignment can be made without causing the court to be
unable to perform its obligations in criminal proceedings.
This bill would provide that it is declarative of existing law.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author, "�t]his bill would address a project
undertaken by the Law Revision Commission in 2009 to clean up
remaining relationships and responsibilities between the State
and the Counties with regard to courts. . . . AB 810 will
implement the language contained in a 2009 report from the Law
Revision Commission entitled 'Statutes made Obsolete by Trial
Court Restructuring�.]'"
2. Recommendations in the 2009 California Law Revision
Commission report
This bill would, in response to the CLRC 2009 Report, revise and
recast certain provisions within the Government Code relating to
the employment, assignment, and compensation of interpreters and
translators, and delete those portions rendered obsolete by
trial court restructuring or otherwise.
The CLRC 2009 Report, in relevant part, reviewed existing
Government Code Section 26806's provisions regarding foreign
language interpreters in a county of 900,000 or more persons.
In particular, that section provided for the assignment of
interpreters in criminal and juvenile cases, the assignment of
interpreters to interpret in a civil case when not needed in a
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 5 of ?
criminal or juvenile case, the assignment of interpreters to
translate any document intended for filing in any civil or
criminal action or proceeding, and the assignment of an
interpreter to translate any document intended for county
recordation.
While the section had been previously amended to provide that
the court clerk, rather than the county clerk, is responsible
for the employment and assignment of interpreters (see SB 1165
(Committee on Local Government, Ch. 118, Stats. 2004)),
"�p]resumably . . . to reflect (1) the enactment of the Trial
Court Funding Act, which made courts responsible for managing
the day-to-day operations and for countywide trail court
administration, and (2) the enactment of the Trial Court
Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, under which the
courts - not the county - employ court interpreters," the CLRC
identified that further reforms appeared warranted. (CLRC 2009
Report, pg. 18-19.)
In addition to identifying a need to relocate the material
pertaining to the employment, assignment, and compensation of
interpreters and translators in the codes, the CLRC identified
that revisions needed to be made to: (1) delete obsolete
references to municipal courts, (2) modernize the provisions
relating to compensation, (3) redirect deposits of the parties'
payment for court interpretation and translation, (4) update the
reference to employment of officers and attach�s by rule, and
(5) ensure that a constitutional requirement is not overlooked.
a. General recommendations
In accordance with the CLRC recommendations, this bill would
move the main provisions of Section 26806 to Government Code
Section 69894.5, remove any remaining references to municipal
courts, state the constitutional requirement that affords any
person who does not understand English the right to an
interpreter throughout the proceedings, and remove the
reference to employment of officers and attach�s to reflect
that such authorization has since been superseded by the Trial
Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act.
b. Modernization of Compensation Provisions
The provision in existing law that specifies the amount of
compensation for an interpreter to translate a document
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 6 of ?
intended to be filed in a court proceeding, Government Code
Section 26806(d), contains outdated references to costs for
both the original translation and for carbon copies of the
translation. According to the CLRC, the specified
compensation amount has not been changed in 50 years and, in
fact, the current practice is for parties to agree to the
amount for compensation. Moreover, carbon copies are now
obsolete, and the more accurate, general reference should be
to the term "copy." (CLRC 2009 Report, pgs. 20-21.)
While the CLRC recommends that the provision be revised to
provide that the amount of compensation is to be determined by
agreement, this bill would address the issue in a different
manner. This bill would instead seek to address the
underlying problem by deleting the reference to the outdated
amount of compensation and the term "carbon copy" altogether
in the recasted version. Proponents also have noted to
Committee staff that document translation is no longer
performed by court interpreters and that, in its place, the
process for a county clerk to verify and certify translated
documents is provided for in Government Code Section 27293.
That section also provides for appropriate fees for verifying
and certifying translated copies. (Gov. Code Sec.
27293(a)(2)(c).)
In addition, the CLRC commented that the provision in existing
law requiring that interpreters collect from the litigants the
fee fixed by the court and deposit it into the county
treasury, Government Code Section 26806(c), has been rendered
obsolete due to the Trial Court Funding Act (Gov. Code Sec.
77000 et seq.) and the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and
Labor Relations Act (Gov. Code Sec. 77600 et seq.), under
which the courts manage and pay for court interpreters. (CLRC
2009 Report, pg. 23.) This bill would remove that language in
its entirety as well.
c. Proper use of parties' payments for an interpreter or
translator
Existing law pertaining to the deposit of parties' payments
for an interpreter or translator into the county treasury is
likewise outdated, as discussed by the CLRC, due to the Trial
Court Funding Act and the Trial Court Interpreter Employment
and Labor Relations Act. (See Gov. Code Secs. 26806(c) and
(d).) Under these Acts, the courts, not counties, manage and
pay for court interpreters. Therefore, given that the
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 7 of ?
provision of such services is a court operation and not a
county responsibility, court interpreter fees should no longer
be deposited into the county treasury. Instead, the CLRC
determined and recommended that they should be deposited into
the state fund used primarily to pay for trial court
operations, the Trial Court Trust Fund. (CLRC 2009 Report,
pg. 23.)
Because this bill does not provide for the compensation of
interpreters and translators, as discussed in Comment 2b, it
does not need to specify what is to be done with any proceeds
from payments for interpreters or translators. Accordingly,
the bill would remove any reference to deposits of funds into
the county treasury.
3. Additional considerations and proposed amendment
This bill would delete any reference to counties of 900,000 or
more persons in discussing the employment or assignment of
interpreters. Given that the Trial Court Interpreter Employment
and Labor Relations Act applies to counties of all sizes, there
appears to be no need to make this distinction.
Finally, this bill includes language stating that it is
declaratory of existing law. Committee staff notes that while
the recasted provisions of Government Code Section 26806 in this
bill's proposed Government Code Section 69894.5 are
substantially similar to existing law and are largely revised to
clean up outstanding issues due to the trial court
restructuring, there are some differences with respect to
deleting references to fees and to counties of 900,000.
Accordingly, the sponsor and author have agreed to remove this
language. The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 9, strike "(e) This section is declarative of
existing law."
4. Technical Amendment
Committee staff notes an apparent technical error on page 2,
line 16. In referencing the Trial Court Interpreter Employment
and Labor Relations Act chapter, the language currently states,
in relevant part, ". . . (commencing with Section 71800) of
Title 8)." To correct this error, the author has agreed to the
following amendment:
On page 2, line 16, strike "Title 8)." and insert "Title 8."
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 8 of ?
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
Related Pending Legislation : AB 618 (Furatani) would enact the
California Language Access Bill of Rights. This bill would
provide, in part, that the right to a competent interpreter
includes a right not to share an interpreter with a witness. It
would also provide that the person charged with the crime is
also entitled to a separate interpreter not to be shared with a
codefendant during any trial proceeding. This bill is currently
in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Prior Legislation :
AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 212, Stats. 2010), See
Background.
AB 349 (Salas, Ch. 231, Stats. 2007), permits an English
translation of an instrument executed or certified in any other
language to be presented to the county clerk for verification
that the translation was performed by a certified or registered
court interpreter or an accredited translator, as specified. It
also requires the clerk to certify the verification under the
seal of the county and authorizes a $10 fee for each document.
SB 1165 (Committee on Local Government, Ch. 118, Stats. 2004),
made corrections to various outdated sections that still
assigned duties to the county clerk that were more appropriate
for the court clerk, including to Government Code Section 26806
to provide that the court clerk is responsible for the
employment and assignment of interpreters.
SB 371 (Escutia, Ch. 1047, Stats. 2002), enacted the Trial Court
Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (TCIELRA) to
convert court interpreters who perform services for the trial
courts from independent contractors to employees of the court.
SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 784, Stats. 2002), in
AB 810 (Wagner)
Page 9 of ?
relevant part, conformed various statutory provisions to the
abolition of municipal courts and their unification within the
superior courts. See also, Background.
SB 2140 (Burton, Ch. 1010, Stats. 2000), enacted the Trial Court
Employment Protection and Governance Act, which converted county
employees who work for the courts into court employees. See
also, Background.
SB 2139 (Lockyer, Ch. 931, Stats. 1997), made various statutory
changes to implement and conform to the unification of trial
courts pursuant to SCA 4 (below).
AB 233 (Escutia, Ch. 850, Stats. 1997), See Background.
SCA 4 (Lockyer, Resolution Ch. 56, Stats. 1996), See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 75, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
**************