BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1089
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 10, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1089 (Alejo) - As Amended: March 25, 2011
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to Be Amended)
SUBJECT : COURT PROCEEDINGS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD BILINGUAL JUDGES, AT THE BEGINNING OF A COURT
CALENDAR, BE ALLOWED TO HELP NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING LITIGANTS BY
PROVIDING AN UNOFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF TYPICAL REMARKS THE
JUDGE MAKES REGARDING COURT DECORUM AND SCHEDULING WHEN A COURT
INTERPRETER IS NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill simply permits bilingual judges, at
the beginning of a court calendar, to help non-English speaking
litigants by providing an unofficial interpretation of typical
remarks the judge makes regarding court decorum and scheduling
when a court interpreter is not immediately available. There is
no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Simply permits bilingual judges, at the beginning of a
court calendar, to help non-English speaking litigants by
providing an unofficial interpretation of typical remarks the
judge makes regarding court decorum and scheduling when a court
interpreter is not immediately available.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires 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. (Code of Civil Procedure section 185.)
2)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, section 14.)
AB 1089
Page 2
3)Requires appointment of an interpreter whenever a witness is
incapable of understanding the English language or is
incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English
language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court and
jury. (Evidence Code section 752.)
4)Provides for the appointment of an interpreter in certain
cases involving domestic violence, parental rights, and
dissolution of marriage involving a protective order, subject
to the availability of federal funding. (Evidence Code
section 755.)
5)Permits a judge to provide an unofficial translation of a
court protective order issued with regard to incidents of
civil harassment, workplace and postsecondary school site
harassment, domestic violence, juvenile law, and elder or
dependent adult abuse. (Code of Civil Procedure section 185.)
COMMENTS : It is as true today as when the California
Legislature first declared in 1992 that, "the number of
non-English speaking persons in California is increasing, and
�the Legislature] 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." (Government Code
Section 68560.) Echoing this, the author of the bill notes,
"California is a multilingual state that has experienced a
significant growth in the number of non-English speaking parties
in its court rooms. Yet, every county in the state is suffering
from a shortage of court interpreters." This bill simply
permits bilingual judges, at the beginning of a court calendar,
to help non-English speaking litigants by providing an
unofficial interpretation of typical remarks the judge makes
regarding court decorum and scheduling when a court interpreter
is not immediately available.
In support of the measure the author, a former staff attorney
for the Monterey County Superior Court, notes:
Under current law, a judge may not communicate in a
language other than English.
Absent legal authority to allow a bilingual judge authority
to give basic instructions at the beginning of a hearing,
the court room sits idle until an interpreter is available
to translate simple court procedures.
AB 1089
Page 3
Background . Under existing law all judicial proceedings in
California must be conducted, preserved, and published in
English and no other language. (Section 185.) Interestingly,
this requirement dates back to 1880, before which this section
permitted certain excepted counties, including Los Angeles, San
Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara, to conduct judicial
proceedings in the English or Spanish language. (Enacted 1872.
Amended by Code Am.1880, c. 35, p. 43, � 1.)
Efforts to accommodate the language needs of non-English
speaking California citizens in relation to the judicial process
began in 1973 when the Legislature requested the Judicial
Council to carry out a thorough investigation of the matter.
The Judicial Council's findings were reported in a series of
comprehensive reports in 1976 and 1977. In 1978 the California
Legislature passed AB 2400, which established criteria for
determining the proficiency of interpreters. (Ch. 158, Stats.
1978.) The program was comprehensively expanded to increase the
number of available, qualified interpreters, and provide
non-English-speaking persons with greater access to the legal
system by SB 1304 (Lockyer) in 1992. With SB 1304 the Judicial
Council assumed responsibility for designating the languages for
which certification programs would be established, for
certifying and registering court interpreters, and for
maintaining a comprehensive program to ensure an available,
competent pool of qualified interpreters. (Ch. 770, Stats.
1992, see also Government Code section 68562 et seq.) The
Judicial Council established the Court Interpreters Program
(CIP) in 1998 under the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) to oversee development of the program and to manage
recruitment, examination, and certification of potential
interpreters, as well as the ongoing training of certified court
interpreters.
California's Language Gap is Growing . While SB 1304 bolstered
the number of available certified court interpreters, the
increase has not been enough and has been far outpaced by the
growth of non-English-speaking persons in California. According
to the Judicial Council's latest report to the Legislature data
from the previous census shows that 18.3 percent of the state's
population, 6,716,006 individuals over the age of 5, reported
not being able to speak English well. (See The California
Judicial Council Administrative Office of the Courts, 2010
Language Need and Interpreter Use in California Superior Courts ,
AB 1089
Page 4
prepared by: The Institute for Social Research, California State
University, Sacramento, 83 (May 2010), hereinafter "Judicial
Council Report.") This marks a 1.44% increase from those
reported as being less than fully proficient in 2005. Of the
population of individuals with limited English proficiency
(LEP), approximately half, or 3,345,205, live in linguistically
isolated households. (Judicial Council Report at 113.)
While the total number of linguistically isolated households
decreased by approximately 4.5 percent from 2005 to 2008,
conversely the total number of interpretive service days
provided by the courts increased 13.6 percent between 2004 and
2008, with California courts providing over one million service
days of interpretive services during the five year study period.
(Judicial Council Report at 23.) The Judicial Council
concluded, "Taken together, the trends in service days for
spoken languages suggest a sizeable and growing demand for
interpretative services in California courts. . . . Immigration
trends between 2004 and 2008 suggest that there continues to be
a significant growth (42%) in individuals immigrating to
California."
Author's Proposed Clarifying Amendment: The author has
prudently proposed to carefully circumscribe the circumstances
under which a judge may provide this highly limited bilingual
assistance as helpful assistance on basic court decorum such
that the entire measure will read:
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, a judge may at the
beginning of a court calendar provide an unofficial
interpretation in a language other than English limited to any
remarks the judge has previously provided in English regarding
the rules of courtroom decorum or the extent to which the
calendar will be affected by the availability of a court
interpreter and the judge determines that it is necessary to
provide such information to the parties.
The author has stated he is continuing to work with the court
interpreters union to ensure the measure addresses any concerns
that may arise.
Prior Related Legislation : AB 663 (Jones) in 2009 would have
established a pilot program for providing court interpreters in
important civil matters not currently served, but died in Senate
Appropriations.
AB 1089
Page 5
AB 3050 (Jones) in 2008, would have established a pilot program
to provide court interpreters in specified civil proceedings,
but was vetoed.
AB 2302 (Judiciary) in 2005, would have provided for court
interpreters when needed for parties in family, domestic
violence, and other civil matters who require assistance with
English, but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 1445 (Shelley), Ch. 376, Stats. 1997, defined and provided
for the regulation of registered interpreters in court
proceedings, and allows a court, for good cause, to appoint an
interpreter who does not hold a court interpreter certificate.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Erik Martin/ JUD. /
(916) 319-2334