California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: To Executive

AB 1127 — Legal aid: court interpreters.

Last action — Last day to consider Governor's veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Last day to consider Governor's veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5.

  2. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

  3. Vetoed by Governor.

  4. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

  5. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 55. Noes 23. Page 3238.).

  6. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 3227.)

  7. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 13 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  8. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 28. Noes 9. Page 2334.).

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  11. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  12. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 30).

  13. In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  16. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  17. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 55. Noes 23. Page 1817.)

  18. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  19. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 24).

  21. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  22. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Read second time and amended.

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 2.) (April 30).

  25. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  27. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  28. Read first time.

  29. From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.

  30. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Chau · Primary
  • Lara · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 8 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Chau

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Lara

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 1127 CHAU Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 55 Yea · 23 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 512000
Democratic 4000
Republican 0300
Total 552300
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Levine — Yea
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Daly — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Holden — Yea
Fong — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Hall — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Allen — Nay
Logue — Nay
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Chau — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Chesbro — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Nay
Cooley — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB1127 Chau By Lara

Passed 28 Yea · 9 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 25902
Democratic 3000
Total 28902
% of votes cast 72%23%0%5%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Lara — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Cannella — Yea
Evans — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
De León — Yea
Hancock — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Huff — Nay
Knight — Nay
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Not Voting
Nielsen — Nay
Roth — Yea
Torres — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4200
Democratic 1000
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
De León — Yea
Lara — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1127 CHAU Assembly Third Reading

Passed 55 Yea · 23 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 491801
Democratic 6100
Republican 0400
Total 552301
% of votes cast 70%29%0%1%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Stone — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Daly — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Harkey — Nay
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Holden — Not Voting
Levine — Yea
Logue — Nay
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Nestande — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Chesbro — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Nay
Cooley — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Williams — Yea
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Democratic 1000
Total 12500
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Linder — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1127 do?
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.
Who sponsors AB 1127?
AB 1127 is sponsored by Chau and Lara.
What is the current status of AB 1127?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1127?
Track AB 1127 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1127

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1127

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →