BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1657
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1657 (Gomez)
As Amended April 29, 2014
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Garcia, Gorell, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| |Stone | |Holden, Jones, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, |
| | | |Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
proceedings.
5)Requires that the provision of interpreters in civil cases
shall not result in a reduction in staffing or compromise the
AB 1657
Page 2
quality of interpreting services in criminal, juvenile, or
other types of matters in which interpreters are provided.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, no direct fiscal impact, as this bill does not add
any requirements to current state and federal law regarding the
provision of court interpreters. The judiciary currently has
about $13 million in funds available-from prior budget surpluses
of funds appropriated for interpreter services. Within any
amounts available now and in the future, the bill establishes
funding priorities by case type.
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:
[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
AB 1657
Page 3
1657 will provide.
On May 22, 2013, the Department of Justice (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? 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, Government Code 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
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
AB 1657
Page 4
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 (Jones) of
2008, which passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003493