BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1657
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1657 (Gomez) - As Introduced: February 11, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : COURT INTERPRETERS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD CERTAIN STATUTES BE CLARIFIED TO ELIMINATE
ANY POTENTIAL CONFUSION REGARDING WHETHER COURTS ARE PERMITTED
TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS
REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF COURT INTERPRETERS IN ANY CIVIL
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THEY ARE NEEDED, AND TO SET FORTH A PROCESS
BY WHICH THE COURTS WILL BEGIN TO TAKE STEPS TOWARD IMPROVED
COMPLIANCE WITH THESE OBLIGATIONS?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill is sponsored by the Judicial Council
to provide better clarity regarding the provision of
interpreters in civil cases, consistently with state and federal
civil rights laws. There is no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Clarifies state statutes regarding court interpreters
that otherwise could be misconstrued to be at odds with other
state and federal laws. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that notwithstanding any law, a court may provide an
interpreter in any civil action or proceeding at no cost to
the parties, regardless of the income of the parties.
2)Provides that if sufficient funds are not budgeted to provide
an interpreter to every party who needs one, the courts will
prioritize actions and proceedings involving parties
proceeding in forma pauperis.
3)Clarifies that no party shall be charged a fee for the
provision of interpreters so utilized.
4)Stipulates that the foregoing shall not be construed to alter,
limit or negate any right to an interpreter in a civil action
or proceeding otherwise provided by state or federal law, or
the right to an interpreter in criminal, traffic or other
infraction, juvenile, or mental competency actions or
AB 1657
Page 2
proceedings.
5)Requires that the provision of interpreters in civil cases
shall not result in a reduction in staffing or compromise the
quality of interpreting services in criminal, juvenile, or
other types of matters in which interpreters are provided.
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.)
3)Provides pursuant to federal law that no person shall on the
ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance, including conduct that has a
disproportionate effect on persons of limited English
proficiency. (42 U.S.C. section 2000(d).) State law is to
the same effect. (Government Code section 11135.)
4)Requires appointment of a qualified interpreter in all civil
proceedings where a party or witness is an individual who is
deaf or hearing impaired. (Evidence Code section 754.)
5)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.)
6)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.)
7)Requires appointment of a translator whenever the written
characters in a writing offered in evidence are incapable of
AB 1657
Page 3
being deciphered or understood directly. (Evidence Code
section 753.)
8)Declares pursuant to the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services
Act (DABSA), that the effective maintenance and development of
a free and democratic society depends on the right and ability
of its citizens and residents to communicate with their
government and the right and ability of the government to
communicate with them; that substantial numbers of persons who
live, work and pay taxes in this state are unable, either
because they do not speak or write English at all, or because
their primary language is other than English, effectively to
communicate with their government; that state and local agency
employees frequently are unable to communicate with persons
requiring their services because of this language barrier; and
that as a consequence, substantial numbers of persons
presently are being denied rights and benefits to which they
would otherwise be entitled. (Government Code section 7291.)
9)Requires every state agency directly involved in the
furnishing of information or the rendering of services to the
public whereby contact is made with a substantial number of
non-English-speaking people, to employ a sufficient number of
qualified bilingual persons in public contact positions to
ensure provision of information and services to the public, in
the language of the non-English-speaking person. (Government
Code section 7292.)
10)Provides that in counties having a population of 900,000 or
over, the clerk of the court 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, that the
clerk shall, when interpreters are needed, assign the
interpreters so employed to interpret in criminal and juvenile
cases in the superior court, may also assign the interpreters
so employed to interpret in civil cases in superior and
municipal courts when their services are not required in
criminal or juvenile cases and when so assigned, shall collect
from the litigants the fee fixed by the court and shall
deposit the same in the county treasury, and provides a fee
schedule for the translation of documents. (Government Code
section 26806.)
AB 1657
Page 4
11)Provides that court interpreters' and translators' fees or
other compensation shall be paid in criminal cases, by the
court and in civil cases, by the litigants, in proportions as
the court may direct, to be taxed and collected as other
costs. (Government Code section 68092.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : The author explains the reason for the bill as
follows:
Although there is a strong legal argument that despite the
language of Government Code section 68092 courts can
provide interpreters in civil cases to indigent litigants
who have limited English proficiency, current law is at
best ambiguous as to whether or not a court may assign
interpreters at no cost to the parties where the parties
are not indigent. AB 1657 will clarify that existing
Government Code sections - which provide that the cost of
interpreters shall be paid by the parties - are not a bar
to the court opting to provide interpreter services at no
cost to the parties in all civil matters, regardless of the
income of the parties involved.
The Judicial Council writes in support:
[L]ocal rules, coupled with various interpretations of
Government Code requirements, have led to some courts
providing civil interpreters in some cases where they are
not explicitly required [by the Government Code sections
expressly addressing interpreters], and other courts not
providing them. The income of the parties can impact the
ultimate decision as well. Without a clarification in the
Government Code, however, individual courts are left to
their own devices to decide how to interpret the Government
Code's requirements. It is in the interest of Californians
statewide to have a consistent application of the
Government Code in every region of the state, which AB 1657
will provide.
This Bill Is Intended to Facilitate Compliance with Federal and
State Civil Rights Laws Requiring The Provision of Court
Interpreters In Civil Cases, And To Set Forth A Process By Which
The State Will Begin To Come Into Better Compliance. The
AB 1657
Page 5
Judicial Council is currently under investigation by the United
States Department of Justice in response to a complaint filed by
the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles alleging unlawful
discrimination against Limited English Proficient (LEP) court
users on the basis of national origin/language. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Los Angeles Superior Court fails
(LASC) to provide LEP individuals with full and equal access to
court services in that, among other shortcomings, the court
fails to provide interpreter services in all civil actions and
proceedings, and/or conditions access to such services on the
payment of a fee. While the complaint named the LASC expressly,
the issues it raises appear to be systemic throughout the
courts.
On May 22, 2013, the DOJ Civil Rights Division issued a letter
to the Judicial Council setting forth a summary of observations
and recommendations as of that point in the investigation.
Specifically, the DOJ indicated that "several current policies,
practices and procedures regarding the provision of language
assistance services in LASC appear to be inconsistent with Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Among other concerns, the
DOJ noted that Title VI requires that competent interpreter
services be provided in all cases where they are needed, and be
provided free of charge, in contrast to the existing policy and
practice of failing to provide or imposing a fee for these
services. The DOJ's determination appears to be consistent with
enforcement actions and policy declarations it has taken in a
number of other states with respect to the provision of court
interpreters. (See
http://www.lep.gov/resources/resources.html#SC.)
It should be also noted that Government Code section 11135 is
comparable to Title VI in that the legislative history evinces
the intent of the Legislature to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of language as a national origin characteristic,
coextensively with Title VI and its implementing regulations.
Unlike Title VI, however, section 11135 is enforceable by a
private right of action. Similar protection for access to
public services in California is provided by the
Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, which strongly
articulates state policy in favor of equal access on the basis
of language.
Consistently with this bill, the DOJ recommended clarifying that
there is no statutory impediment that prevents trial courts from
AB 1657
Page 6
being reimbursed for all appropriate interpreter services in
civil matters. The DOJ also suggested that, to the extent there
are concerns about exceeding expenditure authority, the courts
may wish to prioritize those sensitive matters where the
consequences of ineffective communication between parties and
the courts are particularly onerous, including domestic
violence, civil harassment, family law matters, and unlawful
detainer. The DOJ also advised that, as the court system works
toward ensuring that interpreters are provided to litigants in
all civil matters, the courts may recognize the particular
importance of providing services to indigent litigants who are
eligible for fee waivers. This bill carries forth those
recommendations by (1) making clear that trial courts shall be
reimbursed for interpreter services to the full extent required
by state or federal law in civil actions and proceedings; and
(2) establishing that as full compliance with interpreter
obligations is phased- in, indigent parties in the most
sensitive civil matters receive first priority, with the next
priorities being all matters involving indigent parties, and
ultimately all matters involving all parties.
The approach taken by this bill to prioritize the most critical
case types and the most vulnerable parties is also consistent
with prior legislative proposals, including AB 3050 of 2008,
which passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
Author's Amendments. In order to provide appropriate clarity
and guidance as the expansion of interpreters is phased-in to
ultimately cover all cases where an interpreter is needed, the
author proposes the following useful and important amendments.
SEC 1. Section 68092.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68092.1. Notwithstanding Section 26806 or 68092, or any other
law, a court may provide an interpreter in any civil action or
proceeding at no cost to the parties, regardless of the income
of the parties. If sufficient funds are not appropriated to
provide an interpreter to every party who needs one,
interpreters shall be provided in accordance with the priorities
set forth in section 756 of the Evidence Code.
SEC. 2. Section 756 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:
AB 1657
Page 7
(a) To the extent required by other state or federal law, the
Judicial Council shall reimburse courts for court
interpreter services provided in civil actions and
proceedings to any party who is present in court and who
does not proficiently speak or understand the English
language for the purpose of interpreting the proceedings in
a language the party understands, and assisting
communications between the party, his or her attorney, and
the court.
(b) If sufficient funds are not appropriated to provide an
interpreter to every party that meets the standard of
eligibility, expansion of court interpreter services shall
be phased in by case type in the following order:
(1) Parties proceeding in forma pauperis, pursuant to Section
68631 of the Government Code, in the following types of
actions and proceedings:
(A) Actions and proceedings relating to domestic violence,
including family law matters that include issues of
domestic violence, and actions and proceedings under the
Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act
(Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 15600) of Part 3 of
Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code).
(B) Actions and proceedings to terminate parental rights.
(C) Actions and proceedings relating to conservatorship
or guardianship, including the appointment or termination of a
probate guardian or conservator.
(D) Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful
detainer.
(E) Actions and proceedings by a parent to obtain sole
legal or physical custody of a child or rights to visitation.
(2) Parties proceeding in forma pauperis, pursuant to Section
68631 of the Government Code, in the following types of
actions and proceedings:
(A) All other actions and proceedings related to family
law.
(B) Actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
(3) Actions and proceedings in which a party is not appearing
in forma pauperis relating to domestic violence, including
family law matters that include issues of domestic violence,
and actions and proceedings under the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11 (commencing
with Section 15600) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code).
AB 1657
Page 8
(4) All other civil actions or proceedings in which a party is
appearing in forma pauperis pursuant to Section 68631 of the
Government Code.
(5) All other civil actions or proceedings in which a party is
not appearing in forma pauperis.
(c) No party shall be charged a fee for the provision of a
court interpreter.
(d) This section shall not be construed to alter, limit or
negate any right to an interpreter in a civil action or
proceeding otherwise provided by state or federal law, or the
right to an interpreter in criminal, traffic or other
infraction, juvenile, or mental competency actions or
proceedings.
(e) This section shall not result in a reduction in staffing or
compromise the quality of interpreting services in criminal,
juvenile, or other types of matters in which interpreters are
provided.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council (sponsor)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Communities United Institute
California Immigrant Policy Center
Several individuals
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334