California Senate Bill SB597 Latest Draft

 BILL NUMBER: SB 597AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 30, 2013 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 15, 2013 INTRODUCED BY Senator Lara FEBRUARY 22, 2013 An act to add and repeal Sections 756 and 756.5 of the Evidence Code, relating to legal services. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 597, as amended, Lara. Legal aid: court interpreters. Existing law requires that, when 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, an interpreter be sworn to interpret for him or her. This bill would require the Judicial Council, by June 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 5 courts to participate in a pilot project, to commence on July 1, 2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings. The bill would provide that the initial pilot courts participate until June 30, 2016, and would require the Judicial Council to consider whether a pilot court should continue participating in the project and whether to select another court or additional courts. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by  September 1, 2017   January 1, 2019  , to report to the Legislature its findings and recommendations based on the experiences of the model pilot program. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1,  2018   2020 . Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (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   more likely to be in need of court intervention to protect their legal rights, in part because perpetrators capitalize on the particular vulnerability of t  his class of persons that is posed by various barriers that stand between them and judicial protection, including both economic and language barriers  . 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 participating 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 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 particular languages and various geographic regions of California. This shortage of qualified interpreters 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. SEC. 3. Section 756 is added to the Evidence Code, to read: 756. (a) (1) On or before June 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, the working group shall consider ways to maximize the use of existing resources, calendaring issues, 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, interpreters, at least two of whom shall be nominated by an exclusive representative of interpreter employees, 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,  2018   2020  , and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1,  2108   2020  , deletes or extends that date. SEC. 4. Section 756.5 is added to the Evidence Code, to read: 756.5. (a) (1) The Judicial Council shall select up to five courts to participate in a pilot project, which shall commence on July 1, 2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings as specified in this section. The pilot courts shall be selected from among those participating in a working group established by the Judicial Council to review, identify, and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings. (2) The initial pilot courts shall participate in the pilot project until June 30, 2016. The Judicial Council, in consultation with the pilot courts, shall consider whether a pilot court shall continue participating in the project and whether to select another court or additional courts to join the project. Courts selected to join the project shall participate for three years, or another duration determined by the Judicial Council, in consultation with the pilot courts. (b) The pilot project shall be conducted for the purpose of creating models for effectively providing interpreters in civil matters, implementing best practices, and ascertaining the need for additional interpreter resources and funding to provide interpreters in civil matters on a statewide basis. (c) Interpreters shall be provided by the pilot courts as follows: (1) The pilot courts shall provide interpreters to any party proceeding in forma pauperis 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 in the following types of actions and proceedings: (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). (2) The pilot courts shall provide interpreters in other civil actions or proceedings or in matters in which the party is not appearing in forma pauperis if there is sufficient funding and interpreter resources available to meet all the interpretation needs in the actions and proceedings described in paragraph (1). (3) The pilot courts shall develop a methodology for deploying available interpreter resources, including, but not limited to, funds allocated specifically for interpreters. (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 of this code shall apply to proceedings described in this section. (d) This section shall not be construed to negate or limit any right to an interpreter in a civil action or proceeding otherwise provided by state or federal law. (e) 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. (f) 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. (g) (1) On or before  September 1, 2017   January 1, 2019  , the Judicial Council shall report to the Legislature its findings and recommendations based on the experiences of the model pilot program. The report shall include findings and recommendations regarding the need for additional interpreters and funding, or other resources, to provide interpreters in both of the following: (A) Case types that were the subject of the pilot. (B) All civil actions and proceedings. (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. (3) The report shall also describe the factors affecting the selection of pilot courts, such as, but not limited to, strategies for collaborating with organizations representing stakeholders, utilizing local resources, and methods for addressing the availability of qualified interpreters. (h) 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. (i) 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. (j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,  2018   2020  , and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1,  2018   2020  , deletes or extends that date.