BILL NUMBER: AB 1127 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 6, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 24, 2013
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 2, 2013
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 21, 2013
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Chau
(Principal coauthor: Senator Lara)
FEBRUARY 22, 2013
An act to add and repeal Sections 756 and 756.5 of the Evidence
Code and Section 68567 of the Government Code, relating to legal
services.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1127, Chau. Legal aid: 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 require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2014, to
establish a working group to review, identify, and develop best
practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings,
as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to select
up to 3 courts to participate in a pilot project, to commence on July
1, 2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings and would
require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature findings
related to the pilot project by July 1, 2018. The pilot project would
be funded by an amount not to exceed $6 million dollars from the
Trial Court Trust Fund, upon allocation by the Judicial Council
pursuant to the Judicial Council's existing expenditure authority, or
upon appropriation by the Legislature, from unexpended funds
previously allocated for court interpreter services. The bill would
also require the working group to act as an advisory body to any
Judicial Council committee, advisory board, or joint committee
charged with developing a comprehensive statewide Language Access
Plan (LAP) for use by courts to address the needs of all
limited-English-proficient individuals in conformance with state and
federal law. The bill would require the working group to make
recommendations relating to the establishment of standards for
meaningful and timely provision of language services in all court
proceedings and at all public points of contact within the courts,
and the establishment of a statewide plan to provide for the
translation of court documents using competent and qualified
interpreters. The bill would require the Judicial Council and its
advisory bodies to submit an interim report to the Legislature on the
status of the LAP by September 1, 2014. The bill would repeal these
provisions on January 1, 2020.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares the
following:
(a) California is one of the most linguistically diverse states in
the nation. As language diversity continues to increase, there is a
greater need to ensure that all Californians have meaningful access
to the court system.
(b) There continues to be a need to expand and improve California'
s ability to provide language assistance within the judicial system.
(c) Currently, California has not developed statewide best
practices to address the needs of limited-English-proficient
individuals in all court proceedings and at all public points of
contact within our courts.
(d) There continues to be a shortage of information and data
needed to determine what resources the state needs to provide court
interpreters in civil proceedings. In order to plan for the
successful implementation of language access services in civil
proceedings, information must be gathered on how to maximize the use
of existing resources, and the need for language access. A pilot
program is the most efficient way to gather information from courts
as it relates to interpreter services and language access.
(e) The continuing shortage of certified and registered
interpreters for particular languages and various geographic regions
of California impacts the state's ability to provide meaningful
access to justice for all court users.
SEC. 2. Section 756 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:
756. (a) (1) On or before March 1, 2014, the Judicial Council
shall establish a working group to review, identify, and develop best
practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings.
The best practices developed by the working group shall be used in
carrying out the pilot project described in Section 756.5.
(2) In developing the best practices for the pilot project, the
working group shall consider ways to maximize the use of existing
resources and other practices that will assist courts to deploy
interpreters effectively in civil proceedings.
(3) The best practices shall include training guidelines to be
utilized by the courts participating in the pilot project described
in Section 756.5 to ensure that court interpreters receive training
necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 756.5.
(b) The working group shall include court executive officers,
presiding judges, interpreter coordinators, three interpreters who
shall be nominated by an exclusive representative of interpreter
employees, experts in training and best practices in the field of
court interpretation, representatives of legal services
organizations, and organizations representing individuals with
limited English proficiency, and others that the Judicial Council
determines necessary. The working group shall also include a
representative from a rural community.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends
that date.
SEC. 3. Section 756.5 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:
756.5. (a) The working group described in Section 756 shall
select up to three courts to participate in a pilot project, which
shall commence on or before July 1, 2014, to provide interpreters in
civil proceedings as specified in this section.
(b) (1) The pilot project shall be conducted for the purpose of
creating models for effectively providing interpreters in civil
matters and implementing best practices.
(2) The pilot project, including costs of administration and the
preparation of the report to the Legislature required in subdivision
(h), may be funded by an amount not to exceed six million dollars
($6,000,000) from the Trial Court Trust Fund, upon allocation by the
Judicial Council pursuant to the Judicial Council's existing
expenditure authority, or upon appropriation by the Legislature, from
unexpended funds previously allocated for court interpreter
services. The costs of administration and the preparation of the
report to the Legislature required in subdivision (h) shall not
exceed three percent of the total funding allocation.
(c) Interpreters shall be provided by the pilot courts as follows:
(1) The pilot courts shall provide interpreters to any party in a
civil proceeding who is present and who does not proficiently speak
or understand the English language for the purpose of interpreting
the proceedings in a language that the party understands and
assisting communications between the party, his or her attorney, and
the court.
(2) If the pilot courts expend more than 75 percent of the funding
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) within the first 24
months of the pilot project, pilot courts may prioritize interpreter
services in the following types of actions and proceedings, for
purposes of this pilot project:
(A) Actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
(B) Actions and proceedings brought under the Family Code.
(C) Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer.
(D) Actions and proceedings involving the appointment or
termination of a probate guardian or conservator.
(E) Actions or 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).
(3) The pilot courts shall develop a methodology for deploying
available interpreter resources and funds described in subdivision
(b) if needed. Pilot courts shall establish protocols to ensure that
parties who speak limited or no English and need interpreter services
are identified at the earliest point of contact with the court
system and informed that interpreter services are available. A pilot
court shall not be obligated to provide services under this section
that are not funded by this pilot project.
(4) Interpreters shall be certified or registered pursuant to
Article 4 (commencing with Section 68560) of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of
the Government Code. Subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 755 shall
apply to proceedings described in this section.
(d) This section shall not be construed to alter the right of an
individual 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.
(f) This section shall not be construed to create a right to, or
negate or limit a right to, an interpreter in civil proceedings that
does not otherwise exist under current state or federal law.
(g) The pilot project shall terminate on July 1, 2017.
(h) (1) On or before July 1, 2018, the Judicial Council shall
report to the Legislature the working group's findings and
recommendations based on the experiences of the model pilot project.
(2) The report shall also describe, to the extent possible, the
impact of the availability of interpreters on access to justice and
on court administration and efficiency.
(i) Nothing in this chapter shall limit or restrict courts from
providing interpreters in civil proceedings when those services are
already being provided or in matters in which the judicial officer
deems it necessary to appoint an interpreter.
(j) Nothing in this chapter shall alter or negate the application
of the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act
(Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 71800) of Title 8 of the
Government Code) to the provision of interpreters pursuant to this
section.
(k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends
that date.
SEC. 4. Section 68567 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68567. (a) (1) The working group described in Section 756 of the
Evidence Code shall act as an advisory body to any Judicial Council
committee, advisory board, or joint committee charged with developing
a comprehensive statewide Language Access Plan.
(2) In advising a Judicial Council committee, advisory board, or
joint committee, the working group shall make recommendations for all
of the following:
(A) Establishing standards for meaningful and timely provision of
language services in all court proceedings and at all public points
of contact within the courts.
(B) Establishing procedures for gathering comprehensive data on
the language access needs of court users, including, but not limited
to, providing a means of registering an individual's language needs
in court documents. These procedures should provide metrics on the
need for interpreter services in court proceedings and ancillary
programs and services.
(C) Reviewing current court interpreter procedures and
recommending improvements or additional procedures to provide the
most competent interpreter services to limited-English-proficient
court users and to ensure compliance with Rule 2.890 of the
California Rules of Court.
(D) Reviewing current court procedures and recommending
improvements or additional procedures to maximize existing language
resources, including bilingual staff, court interpreters,
translators, and other resources shared among courts to expand access
to language services at all public points of contact within the
courts.
(E) Reviewing current practices and developing strategies to
provide interpreter services that comply with the Trial Court
Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (Chapter 7.5
(commencing with Section 71800) of Title 8) in all court proceedings.
The review may include the evaluation of any programs providing
interpreters in domestic violence cases or other civil cases,
including any pilot projects.
(F) Establishing a statewide plan to provide for the translation
of court documents using competent and qualified interpreters.
(G) Establishing a plan to provide education and training to
judicial officers, court personnel, and court-appointed professionals
on the legal requirements for language access, court policies and
rules pertaining to language access, language service provider
qualifications, ethics pertaining to interpreter services, the
effective use of translated court documents, and effective techniques
for working with language service providers.
(H) Reviewing and considering the American Bar Association's
Standards for Language Access in Courts, as adopted February 2012.
(b) The working group shall be consulted before any committee of
the Judicial Council brings recommendations to allocate any surplus
funds appropriated for interpreter services or to adopt any policy
regarding the reimbursement of the courts for interpreter
expenditures from the funds appropriated for that purpose.
(c) On or before September 1, 2014, the Judicial Council and its
advisory bodies shall submit an interim report to the Legislature,
which shall include the status of its efforts and completion date for
the Language Access Plan.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends
that date.