Bill Text: CA AB1127 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | Introduced

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Legal aid: court interpreters.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)

Status: (Vetoed) 2014-03-06 - Last day to consider Governor's veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5. [AB1127 Detail]

Download: California-2013-AB1127-Introduced.html

---

BILL NUMBER: AB 1127	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Chau

                        FEBRUARY 22, 2013

   An act relating to court interpreters.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 1127, as introduced, Chau. Court interpreters.
   Existing law requires, when a witness is incapable of
understanding the English language or expressing himself or herself
in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel,
court, and jury, an interpreter to be sworn to interpret for him or
her. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of
language and interpreter use and need in court proceedings, with
commentary, and to report its findings and recommendations to the
Governor and to the Legislature every 5 years. Existing law requires
that this study serve as the basis for determining the need to
establish interpreter programs and certification and for establishing
these programs and examinations through the normal budgetary
process.
   This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that every
effort be made to recruit and retain qualified interpreters to work
in the state courts, and that the Judicial Council make further
efforts to improve and expand court interpreter services and address
the shortage of qualified court interpreters.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:
   (a) California is the most populous and demographically diverse
state in the nation, a meeting place of cultures, ethnicities, and
ideas unlike any other in the world. Of the state's 34 million
people, about 26 percent (roughly 8.8 million people) are foreign
born. Californians speak more than 220 languages, and 40 percent of
the state's population speaks a language other than English in the
home. This extraordinary diversity is among the state's greatest
assets and has helped make California an international leader in
business, the arts, entertainment, engineering, medicine, and other
fields. The state's diversity also poses unique challenges for the
delivery of government services, particularly for the courts.
   (b) For Californians not proficient in English, the prospect of
navigating the legal system is daunting, especially for the growing
number of parties who do not have access to legal services and
therefore have no choice but to represent themselves in court, which
is a virtually impossible task for people who are unable to
understand the proceedings. Nearly seven million Californians cannot
access the courts without significant language assistance, cannot
understand pleadings, forms, or other legal documents, cannot
communicate with clerks or 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. It is
essential to provide English learners and other non-English-speaking
litigants with interpreters in order to provide full and equal access
to our justice system without regard to language.
   (c) The Legislature has previously recognized that the number of
persons with limited English proficiency in California is increasing
and recognized the need to provide equal justice under the law to all
California residents and the need to provide for their special needs
in their relations with the judicial and administrative law systems.
The Legislature has likewise recognized that the effective
maintenance of a democratic society depends on the right and ability
of its residents to communicate with their government and the right
and ability of the government to communicate with them.
   (d) Court interpreter services are a core court function. Our
judicial system relies on the adversarial process in which neutral
arbiters decide disputes based upon competing presentations of facts
and law. Conducting court proceedings when one party is incapable of
fully participating significantly impairs the quality and efficiency
of the process and its results, including compliance with court
orders.
   (e) The inability to respond to the language needs of parties in
court impairs trust and confidence in the judicial system and
undermines efforts to secure justice for all. The authority of the
courts depends on public perceptions of fairness and accessibility.
Any significant erosion of public trust and confidence in the
fairness of judicial outcomes threatens the future legitimacy of the
legal system. By excluding a large segment of the population from
participation in an institution that shapes and reflects our values,
we threaten the integrity of the judicial process. Resentment
fostered by the inability to access the benefits of the court system
can ultimately impair enforcement of judicial decrees and attenuate
the rule of law.
   (f) Reliance on untrained interpreters, such as family members or
children, can lead to faulty translations and threaten the court's
ability to ensure justice. Court interpretation is extremely
difficult and takes a rare combination of skills, experience, and
training. Apart from the possibility of fraud, unqualified
interpreters often fail to accurately and comprehensively convey
questions and distort testimony by omitting or adding information, or
by stylistically altering the tone and intent of the speaker,
thereby preventing courts from hearing the testimony properly. These
problems compromise the factfinding process and can result in genuine
injustice.
   (g) California law currently mandates the appointment of an
interpreter for all witnesses in civil cases, and for parties with
hearing impairments. In addition, California statutes mandate the
appointment of an interpreter in adjudicative proceedings before
state agencies, boards, and commissions at no charge to the parties
whenever a party or the party's witness does not proficiently speak
or understand English. Other states, by contrast, provide both
witnesses and parties with a right to a court-appointed interpreter
in all civil matters at no cost to the party.
  SEC. 2.  The Legislature finds and declares that there continues to
be a shortage in the availability of certified and registered
interpreters in the state courts that impacts the state's ability to
provide meaningful access to justice for all court users. It is the
intent of the Legislature that every effort be made to recruit and
retain qualified interpreters to work in the state courts, and that
the Judicial Council make further efforts to improve and expand court
interpreter services and address the shortage of qualified court
interpreters.