This docum ent does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h1393.CJS
DATE: 1/24/2024
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: HB 1393 Court Interpreter Services
SPONSOR(S): Tuck
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 468
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
1) Civil Justice Subcommittee Mathews Jones
2) Justice Appropriations Subcommittee
3) Judiciary Committee
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Article V, section 14, of the Florida Constitution, all funding for the offices of the clerks of the circuit
court and county courts performing court-related functions shall be provided by adequate and appropriate filing
fees for judicial proceedings and services charges and costs for court-related functions. However, where the
requirements of the United States Constitution or the Florida Constitution preclude the imposition of filing fees
and charges, the state shall provide those funds as determined by the legislature.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations provide that no person shall be subject
to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity that receives
federal financial assistance. In certain circumstances, failing to ensure that a person with limited or no English
proficiency (“LEP individual”) can effectively participate in or benefit from federally-assisted programs or
activities may violate Title VI’s prohibition against national origin discrimination; this is often true of failing to
ensure that an LEP individual has meaningful language access to state court proceedings and operations
through an interpreter or other appropriate methods. To promote such access, the Florida Evidence Code and
the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration require an interpreter’s appointment for judicial proceedings in
specified situations. An interpreter may also be necessary for depositions, mediations, and other case-related
proceedings and to give an LEP individual access to points of public contact for the court system, which may
include the offices of the clerks of the circuit court.
HB 1393 amends s. 29.0185, F.S., to authorize the state court system to use state funds to provide court-
appointed interpreting services to non-indigent individuals. Such funds may be used if they are available in the
fiscal year appropriation for due process services and if such interpreting services are provided as prescribed
by the Supreme Court.
The bill also amends s. 29.0195, F.S., to remove the requirement that a trial court administrator recover funds
utilized for court interpreter services from those individuals who have the present ability to pay.
The bill may have an indeterminate fiscal impact on state and local governments.
The bill is effective upon becoming law.
FULL ANALYSIS STORAGE NAME: h1393.CJS PAGE: 2
DATE: 1/24/2024
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Background
State Court Funding
Pursuant to Article V, section 14, of the Florida Constitution, all funding for the offices of the clerks of
the circuit court and county courts performing court-related functions shall be provided by adequate and
appropriate filing fees for judicial proceedings and services charges and costs for court-related
functions. However, where the requirements of the United States Constitution or the Florida
Constitution preclude the imposition of filing fees and charges, the state shall provide those funds as
determined by the legislature.
1
Further, pursuant to s. 29.001, F.S., for the purpose of interpreting Art. V, sec. 14 of the Florida
Constitution, the state courts system includes the Supreme Court, district courts of appeal, circuit
courts, county courts, and certain supports thereto.
2
Funding for the state courts system is provided
from state revenues.
3
Additionally, section 29.004(5), F.S., provides that funding for court foreign
language services and translators essential to comply with constitutional requirements be provided from
state revenues.
4
Interpretation and Translation Services
Although the terms “interpreter” and “translator” are often used interchangeably, there are significant
differences between the two roles. An interpreter works with spoken language, by listening to a speaker
speak in one language and repeating what the speaker said in another language.
5
Interpreters use one
of two modes interpreting, consecutive
6
or simultaneous,
7
depending on the context.
8
Translators work
with written documents and take text written in the source language and translate it into text in the
target language (i.e. taking a document written in Spanish and translating the document into English).
9
According to data from the United States Census Bureau, over 60,000,000 people living in the United
States who are over the age of five speak a language other than English at home.
10
Of these, over
25,000,000 speak English “less than very well.”
11
In Florida alone, nearly 30 percent of the state’s
population over the age of five speaks a language other than English at home.
12
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations provide that no person shall be
subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity that
receives federal financial assistance. In certain circumstances, failing to ensure that a person with
limited or no English proficiency (“LEP individual”) can effectively participate in or benefit from federally-
assisted programs or activities may violate Title VI’s prohibition against national origin discrimination;
1
Art. 5, sec. 14(b), Fla. Const.
2
S. 29.001(1), F.S.
3
Id.
4
S. 29.004(5), F.S.
5
American Translators Association, What’s the Difference Between a Translator and an Interpreter?, (Feb. 1, 2023),
https://www.atanet.org/client-assistance/whats-the-difference-between-a-translator-and-an-interpreter/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2024).
6
Consecutive interpreting involves listening to a speaker and repeating what has been said after the speaker stops talking. Supra note
11.
7
Simultaneous interpreting involves listening to a speaker and simultaneously repeating their speech in the target language on a slight
delay. Supra note 11.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Languages Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over for
United States: 2009-2013, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2013/demo/2009-2013-lang-tables.html (last visited Jan. 22, 2024).
11
Id.
12
U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts: Florida, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL/POP815221 (last visited Jan. 22, 2024). STORAGE NAME: h1393.CJS PAGE: 3
DATE: 1/24/2024
this is often true of failing to ensure that an LEP individual has meaningful language access to state
court proceedings and operations through an interpreter or other appropriate methods.
13
The Florida Evidence Code provides that, when a judge determines that a witness cannot hear or
understand the English language, or cannot express himself or herself in English sufficiently to be
understood, a duly-qualified interpreter must be sworn in to interpret for the witness, at no cost to the
witness.
14
Similarly, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration require an interpreter’s appointment
free of charge to the person needing the interpreter’s services:
In any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which an LEP individual is the:
o Accused; or
o Victim, unless the court finds that he or she does not require an interpreter; and
In all other proceedings in which an LEP individual is a litigant, if the court determines that:
o The litigant’s inability to comprehend English deprives him or her of an understanding of
the court proceedings;
o A fundamental interest is at stake;
15
and
o No alternative to an interpreter’s appointment exists.
16
The Office of the State Courts Administrator manages and administers the Court Interpreter
Certification and Regulation Program and maintains a registry of certified,
17
language-skilled,
18
provisionally approved,
19
and registered
20
court interpreters.
21
Generally, the court must appoint an
interpreter to provide interpretation services in the following order of preference:
22
A certified or language-skilled interpreter.
A provisionally-approved interpreter.
A registered interpreter.
An interpreter who is not certified, language-skilled, provisionally-approved, or registered, if the
court finds good cause (such as preventing burdensome delay or the LEP individual’s consent).
Parties to litigation may, for proceedings for which no interpreter is appointed, contract for the services
of an interpreter at their own expense, but must observe the same preferences when retaining an
interpreter as do the courts when appointing them.
23
However, the United States Department of Justice
has noted that interpreters are not just necessary for court appearances; an interpreter may also be
necessary to give an LEP individual access to points of public contact for the court system, which may
include information desks and filing offices, including the offices of the clerks of the circuit court.
24
United States Department of Justice
13
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Working with State Courts to Remove Language Barriers to Justice,
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/working-state-courts-remove-language-barriers-justice (last visited Jan. 22, 2024).
14
S. 90.606, F.S.
15
A fundamental interest may include civil commitment, termination of parental rights, paternity, or dependency proceedings.
16
R. 2.560, F.R.J.A.
17
A “certified” designation is the highest-qualified state-level interpreter designation for languages for which there is a state-level
certification examination. Currently, these languages are Amharic, Arabic, Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian, Cantonese, Filipino (Tagalog),
French, Haitian Creole, Hmong, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, and Vietnamese. Office of
the State Courts Administrator, Find an Interpreter, https://www.flcourts.gov/Resources-Services/Court-Services/Court-
Interpreting/Find-an-Interpreter (last visited Jan. 22, 2024).
18
The “language-skilled” designation is the highest-qualified state-level interpreter designation for languages for which there is no state-
level certification examination. Id.
19
The “provisionally approved” designation is the next highest qualified state-level interpreter designation below the certified and
language-skilled designations. Such an interpreter may be utilized when no certified or language-skilled interpreter is available. Id.
20
Registration is the initial step towards obtaining an official state-level designation, and “registered” refers to interpreters who have
satisfied general prerequisites but who have yet to qualify for an official designation. Such an interpreter may be utilized when there is
no certified, language-skilled, or provisionally approved interpreter available. Id.
21
Id.; Office of the State Courts Administrator, Court Services, https://www.flcourts.gov/Resources-Services/Court-Services (last visited
Jan. 22, 2024).
22
R. 2.560, F.R.J.A.
23
R. 2.565, F.R.J.A.
24
Letter from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, to Chief Justices/State Court Administrators (August 2010),
https://www.justice.gov/file/1250731/download (last visited Jan. 22, 2024). STORAGE NAME: h1393.CJS PAGE: 4
DATE: 1/24/2024
In 2010, in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a letter of guidance to state courts regarding the obligation to
provide language access services to individuals with limited proficiency in the English language.
25
The
DOJ’s letter specifically emphasized the following concerns about state courts’ policies and practices
which:
Limit the types of proceedings for which qualified interpreter services were being provided by
the court,
Charge interpreter costs to one or more parties;
Restrict language services to courtrooms; and
Fail to ensure effective communication with court-appointed or supervised personnel.
26
The DOJ continues to monitor state courts’ efforts related to the provision of interpreting services as
part of the department’s responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
27
State’s Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability
To gain greater compliance with the DOJ’s priorities, the state’s Commission on Trial Court
Performance and Accountability, in coordination with the Trial Court Budget Commission, has been
tasked with evaluating the ability of trial courts to expand the provision of court interpreting services
without cost to court participants and without regard to an individual’s financial status.
28
The
Commission recommended a phased approach to the expansion of state-funded court interpreter
services.
29
In March 2023, the Commission submitted a revised report to the Court which recommended an initial
expansion of interpreter services, without cost and regardless of indigency status to the following types
of proceedings:
Child support;
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act;
Simplified Dissolution of Marriage;
Evictions; and
Small Claims.
30
The Florida Supreme Court approved the Commission’s revised report, including the expansion of
state-funded court interpreter services for the recommended proceedings.
31
Effect of Proposed Changes
HB 1393 amends s. 29.0185, F.S., to authorize the state court system to use state funds to provide
court-appointed interpreting services to non-indigent individuals. Such funds may be used if they are
available in the fiscal year appropriation for due process services and if such interpreting services are
provided as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the bill amends s. 29.0195, F.S., to repeal the requirement that a trial court administrator
recover funds utilized for court interpreter services from those individuals who have the present ability
to pay. The bill retains in current law the requirement that a trial court administrator must attempt to
recover expenditures for translation services from non-indigent individuals. Under the bill, any such
provision of state-funded court interpreting services to non-indigent participants would be subject to the
availability of funds.
25
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Department of Justice Guidance Letter Regarding the Obligation to Provide Language Access (Aug. 17, 2010),
https://www.justice.gov/file/1250731/download (last visited Jan. 23, 2024).
26
Id. at 2.
27
Office of the State Courts Administrator, 2024 Judicial Impact Statement on SB 468 (Jan. 17, 2024), on file with the House Civil
Justice Subcommittee.
28
Id. at 3, citing to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-56 (June 24, 2020).
29
Id.
30
Id. at 4.
31
Id. STORAGE NAME: h1393.CJS PAGE: 5
DATE: 1/24/2024
However, if those expenditures were for translation services, the trial court administrator is required to
seek reimbursement from the non-indigent individual. Further, the bill clarifies that it does not authorize
the recovery of costs for interpreter services from the state attorney, indigent defendants, or court-
appointed defense counsel for indigent defendants.
The bill is effective upon becoming law.
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Amends s. 29.0185, F.S., relating to the provision of state-funded due process services to
individuals.
Section 2: Amends s. 29.0195, F.S., relating to the recovery of expenditures for state-funded services.
Section 3: Provides an effective date.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
The bill will likely have an insignificant fiscal impact on the state judiciary revenues. The elimination
of the cost-recovery provision for court interpreting services is not anticipated to result in a
significant fiscal impact, as the amount currently collected from such services is minimal.
32
2. Expenditures:
The bill will likely have an indeterminate negative fiscal impact on state expenditures. Expenditures
are contingent upon the expansion and provision of court interpreting services as defined by court
rule and will be subject to availability of funds.
33
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
The potential expansion of court interpretation services to non-indigent individuals may have a positive
economic impact on court participants who are not proficient in the English language.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS:
None.
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
1. Applicability of Municipality/County Mandates Provision:
32
Id. at 5.
33
Id. at 6. STORAGE NAME: h1393.CJS PAGE: 6
DATE: 1/24/2024
Not applicable. The bill does not appear to require counties or municipalities to spend funds or take
action requiring the expenditure of funds; reduce the authority that counties or municipalities have to
raise revenues in the aggregate; or reduce the percentage of state tax shared with counties or
municipalities.
2. Other:
None.
B. RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY:
Not applicable.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES