Aug. 26, 2006

By Geoffrey L. Robinson
GUEST COMMENTARY

EVERY DAY in California courts, hundreds of litigants with limited English proficiency face a daunting challenge -- trying to make their case in a proceeding in which they can barely communicate.

For the millions of Californians not proficient in English, this challenge is overwhelming and, for all practical purposes, access to justice is being denied.

Almost 20 percent of Californians (7 million) do not speak English well enough to meaningfully participate in a court proceeding.

These Californians cannot understand the court documents they receive, cannot communicate with clerks or judges, and cannot follow or participate in court proceedings.

The exclusion of such a large sector of society from participation in an institution that shapes and reflects our values is threatening the institutional integrity and authority of the courts. How can this be happening?

Surprising as it may seem, there is no right to an interpreter in most civil proceedings in California.

Although the law requires an interpreter in criminal cases, there is no corresponding right in a civil case, even though the interests at stake -- loss of custody of a child, domestic abuse, civil rights, eviction from a home -- can be equally compelling. And the courts lack adequate funding to expand court interpretation to cover thousands of civil cases.

As a result, those unable to pay for a lawyer face a hopeless task -- attempting to represent themselves in court when they are unable to understand what is happening or to communicate effectively with the court.

Judges are the first to acknowledge these problems. When no interpreter can be found, the court hearing must be put off -- one administrator estimated that the result was more than 10,000 delayed proceedings per year in Los Angeles County alone.

Proceedings involving untrained interpreters are gruelingly slow, confused and inefficient. A recent report to the legislature found consensus among judges that use qualified interpreters was a "fundamental factor contributing to the quality of justice in their courts."

So why does this problem persist? Certainly not from lack of popular support. Polls show that an overwhelming number of Californians (85 percent) believe interpreters should be made available to assist non-English speakers in all court proceedings, civil and criminal.

But the problem is beyond solution at the local court level and can only be addressed as part of a comprehensive, statewide plan.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger clearly recognizes the seriousness of the issue, but has given mixed signals about his willingness to help solve it. He recently declared that "I believe it is essential to provide non-English speaking litigants with interpreters in order to provide meaningful access to our justice system."

At the same time, however, he vetoed a $10 million budget item intended to provide more interpreter services in civil cases.

The governor may soon have another chance to address this fundamental issue.

A bill authored by Assemblyman Dave Jones, AB 2302, would provide the right to an interpreter in all civil proceedings -- family law, domestic violence, small claims, traffic, probate -- all proceedings.

The bill has passed the Assembly and is making its way through the Senate. It is likely to end on the governor's desk. When it does, he should sign it, and should provide the necessary funding in the next budget.

The governor should sign AB 2302 because Californians believe the right to an interpreter in all civil proceedings should exist as a matter of fundamental fairness.

He should sign it because denying that right is inconsistent with the core values of our society.

He should sign it to be true to his word and true to the promise of equal justice.

Robinson is chairman of the Language Access Committee located in Walnut Creek.