Assembly Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Judiciary Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 1
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of a b eighteen twenty seven? Is there anyone here in opposition to a b eighteen twenty seven? Oh, we'll bring it back to committee. Assembly member Dixon, any questions or comments?
You good? Alright. Yeah. I I agree. I I didn't realize that some of these existing limitations on small businesses.
And given the challenges of being able to access Superior Court being a higher lawyer, I think this this is a common sense measure that allows small businesses to resolve some of these smaller claims on their own directly with customers whoever whoever or other businesses that they have some conflict with that's a small monetary amount, but still meaningful to a small business. Would you like to close?
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Yeah. We'll go ahead and do that when we have a quorum, but thank you so much for the presentation.
Redner 1
Right. Up next, we have item two, a b nineteen sixteen, Assembly Member Lee. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 5
Thank you, chair, members. I wanna begin by thanking the committee for their thoughtful analysis. AB nineteen sixteen will allow American sign language interpreters participate in the same collective bargaining process as other certified interpreters. In 2001, the legislature enacted the trial court interpreter employment and labor relations act to establish court interpreters as employees, allowing them to collectively bargain over wages, benefits, and working conditions. However, when the law was enacted, ASL interpreters were excluded from the statutory definition of certified interpreter.
This contributes to recruitment and retention challenges. Nationwide, there are roughly 10,000 certified ASL interpreters serving up to a million deaf or hard of hearing ASL users, creating significant access gaps. AB 19 simply updates definition of a certified interpreter in the law to include American sign language interpreters, allowing them to participate in the existing collective bargaining framework. This bill is sponsored by the California Federation of Interpreters. And with me today in support, I have Carmen Ramos, who's the president of the California Federation of Interpreters, and Ignacio Hernandez representing California Interpreters.
Respectfully ask your I vote when the, appropriate time.
Redner 6
Good morning. I'm Carmen Ramos, president of the California Federation of Interpreters, Interpreters, and I would like to read a statement from the one and only ASL interpreter court interpreter we have in Sacramento. She is currently unrepresented, and, she wrote to us this. To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my strong support for the inclusion of American Sign Language, ASL, interpreters in the government code governing the trial interpreter employment and labor relations. As the code currently stands, ASL interpreters are not included in the same statutory framework that governs spoken language interpreters.
The exclusion create this exclusion, I'm sorry, creates significant disparities in representation, employment protections, and working conditions for those of us providing sign language interpretation in the courts. As the, ASL is the third most requested language in California's courts. Requests for ASL interpretation arise in many contexts, including but not limited to potential deaf jurors, deaf litigants, witnesses, and other court participants who require language access in order to fully participate in the judicial proceedings. Despite the high demand for these services, ASL interpreters remain excluded from the same employment and labor protections afforded to spoken language interpreters. Without a functioning memorandum of understanding, MOU, I and other ASL interpreters remain unrepresented and without meaningful bargaining rights.
While spoken language interpreters are able to negotiate terms related to wages, working conditions, unemployment protections through established labor relations structures, ASL interpreters are left without similar mechanisms. As a result, we are subject to decisions and policy changes that affect the broader interpreter workforce, yet we have no formal voice or representation in those processes. ASL interpreters are also limited to one hundred working hours per year as independent contractors because we do not have access to the intermittent part time interpreter classification available to spoken language interpreters. With such a small pool of qualified ASL interpreters, this restriction is detrimental to both interpreters and the court's ability to meet the growing demand for services. Furthermore, ASL interpreters' time?
Okay. Thank you
Redner 8
Thank you. So I'm gonna briefly Ignacio Hernandez, also on behalf of the, excuse me, the California Federation of Interpreters. Thank you for allowing us to read the statement from the ASL interpreter of Sacramento County. She's actually in the middle of a murder trial and couldn't get over here this morning. Let me just add that according to the judicial council of California, there are two years ago, there were 55 ASL interpreters that were on their master list.
Now it's down to 33 or, I believe, 39. And so there's definitely a need to increase. And it's still not meeting the need in court. So this will go a long way to help bring those interpreters into our courtrooms and help the court users as needed. Thank you and ask for your support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b nineteen sixteen? Name, organization, if any, and position on the bill?
Redner 9
There you go. Good morning. My name is Yvette Garcia, Spanish court interpreter from San Diego with the California Federation of Interpreters, and I am here in support of AB1916.
Redner 12
morning. My name is Rosa Treviso, and I am a certified court Spanish interpreter. I, currently work at at the San Joaquin County Superior Court. I'm also the secretary treasurer for California Federation of Interpreters, and I am here to support AB one nine one six. Thank you.
Redner 7
Good morning. My name is Maria Antonia Pellichari. I'm Italian and Spanish court certified interpreter in the Los Angeles court systems. The Los Angeles court systems are also part of the Region one of the California Federation of Interpreters together with Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. And I'm the region one representative.
Thank you. And I'm in support of AB nineteen sixteen. Sorry. That was the most important part. Thank you.
Redner 1
Is there anyone here in opposition to AB nineteen sixteen? Alright. Any questions or comments from the committee? We don't we we don't have one yet. But the enthusiasm is jumping out of the seat from a Sunday member of Hara Obedient.
Would you like to close?
Redner 5
Just respectfully ask your I vote when the time is appropriate and just a recognition that California laws for long, for too long not recognize ASL as language when it clears clearly it is. There are 3,000,000 deaf and hard of hearing Californians out there that are served basically in the court system by 33 people right now, and this would really alleviate that and help more court interpreters for ASL. We're So simply asking I vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.
Redner 1
Well, thank you for bringing this forward in recognition of the importance and the hard work of our interpreters, our ASL interpreters, and just ensuring that our interpreters are have the appropriate representation as other court employees do. So when we get the opportunity, we'll be able to vote on this. So thank you.
Redner 1
And for the record, item three, a b 1957 Pacheco has been pulled from today's hearing. The only other remaining items, a b 19771977 Irwin, and my understanding is some member Pacheco will be presenting that when she gets here. If we can have madam secretary, if we can establish quorum, please.
Redner 10
Consent includes a b seventeen fifty two Lackey to appropriations, a b eighteen twenty four Ramos to human services, AB eighteen forty six Stephanie as amended to human services, AB eighteen seventy five Hart to the floor, AB nineteen fifty Arabedian as amended to appropriations, AB nineteen fifty one Dixon as amended to appropriations, and a b nineteen sixty seven Zuber to human services. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Masito?
Aye. Masito, aye. Barakahan? Aye. Barakahan, aye.
Brian? Aye. Brian, Connolly? Dixon? Aye.
Dixon, aye. Haribedian? Aye. Haribedian, Pacheco? Pappin?
Sanchez? Stephanie?
Redner 1
Okay. That bill is out. I will go to item one if do we have a motion and a second
Redner 10
Calra, aye. Mesito? Aye. Mesito, aye. Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye.
Connolly? Dixon? I. Dixon, I. Harbetian?
I. Harbetian, I. Pacheco? I. Pacheco, I.
Pappin? Sanchez? Stephanie? I. Stephanie, I.
Zabur.
Redner 10
is due passed to appropriations. Calra. Aye. Calra. Aye.
Masito. Aye. Masito. Aye. Barakahan?
Aye. Barakahan, aye. Brian?
Redner 10
Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Sanchez? Stephanie? Aye.
Stephanie, Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. Bill is out. And can we just run through a consent calendar again for those who just walked in?
Redner 10
This is for consent, Connolly Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin Sanchez, Zabur. Aye.
Zabur, aye.
Redner 1
Alright. So we have item four, a b nineteen seventy seven, Irwin, and I believe a Sunday member Pacheco will be presenting on her behalf. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 11
Oh, so I'm be I'm presenting on behalf of assembly member Irwin, and this is assembly bill nineteen seventy seven. This bill sponsored by the secretary of state clarifies and corrects ambiguities and inconsistencies in the online notarization act. A b nineteen seven well, actually, s b six nine six created a comprehensive framework for remote online notarization in California. But following enactment, the secretary of state with input from National Notary Association has identified technical inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unclear provisions that will hinder effective implementation. This bill provides necessary technical corrections and conforming amendments to ensure effective implementation, establish clear operational standards, and maintain consistency with existing noted public laws.
The author has asked me to share that she will continue conversations with the chair, sponsor, and stakeholders to address concerns around the ability to charge fees for terminated notarization sessions. And with me today in support of the in support is the sponsor of the bill, the secretary of state's office, Tim
Redner 11
Cromartie, deputy secretary of state for legislation. I'll hand it over to him.
Redner 3
Mister chair and member, Tim Cromartie on behalf of secretary of state, Shirley and Weber. This bill is a necessary follow-up to SB six nine six by senator Portantino, which established for the first time a framework for licensed California notaries to conduct online notarizations. In implementing that groundbreaking legislation, the secretary of state's office has identified a number of issues, as has been said, that are significantly slowing our work and making that implementation more difficult. AB nineteen seventy seven will address these deficiencies by resolving inconsistencies in definitions and procedures, updating existing licensing and training requirements, and providing clear guidance on how to authenticate digital seals. In short, this legislation will expedite our implementation of online notarization in California.
We thank assembly member Erwin for her partnership and leadership in bringing this measure forward. With that, I respectfully ask for your vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b nineteen seventy seven? Is there anyone here in opposition to a b nineteen seventy seven? We already have a motion. Any questions or comments?
Madam vice chair? Assemblyman Murray Dixon.
Redner 9
support, except for the provision of increased fees. And then there's a question, I think,
Redner 13
just reading our letters with the Association of Notaries that, once they begin a notary's online session, then they can't charge or recover
Redner 13
their setup. Sorry. Thank you. But should I should so I just to just to repeat, I I support the online updating and technological improvement. Of course, I'm just concerned about fees.
I they don't mention it, but I will mention it. They I've not even spoken with them, but $5,000 which my question is to become a notary. What is the current cost or notary license fee? What is that?
Redner 13
Oh, it's currently so this is not increasing? No. Okay. What about the subsequent years of 1,000? Is that an increase?
Redner 3
That's standard. And the reason those fees are so high is that we've discovered, based on anecdotal information from other states that have implemented this system, sorry about that, that many notaries can't do this on their own unilaterally. They need an online platform, a secure platform.
Redner 3
And those are independently owned. Many of those owners will they'll start up, and they'll cease operations and go bankrupt. To address that, we so that that is extremely disruptive for notaries because they can't do online notarization without those secure portals. So the fees are a protective measure. They're relatively high.
One, to minimize fraud, and two, to ensure that only legitimate platform operators are registering with the Secretary of State's office.
Redner 13
So the the notaries don't oppose object to those fees? No. Okay. And then the annual update renewal, 1,000, they're okay with that?
Redner 13
Okay. I generally, I'm opposed to fees. But if the if the people being affected or have no problem with it Yeah. And it's for fraud protection. I I will
Redner 3
Regarding the if I can address, mister chair, one other item regarding the the fee for termination.
Redner 3
We haven't I don't wanna get in front of the author, but we have communicated to the author's office that as the sponsors, we're willing to drop that provision from the bill.
Redner 14
Secretary of State and the author for bringing it. I do think there's a legitimate point that was made in the one opposition letter, and it sounds like that's gonna be corrected. So thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. Without any further comment, assemblymember, would you like to close?
Redner 11
And thank you, and thank you all. And on behalf of assembly member Irwin, I ask for your vote.
Redner 10
Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Brian? Brian, aye.
Connolly? Dixon? Aye. Herrabinian, aye. Pacheco?
Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin?
Redner 10
Pappin, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie?
Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. That bill is out. Let's go through add ons. Consent calendar add ons.
Redner 10
For consent, Connolly Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye.
Sanchez, aye.
Redner 1
Yeah. On right. So we're gonna hold on. I think we have one some member coming to add on, but I think everyone else is caught up. Alright, madam secretary.
If we do add ons.
Redner 10
Connolly, aye. A b 1827 item one Chen. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye.
AB nineteen sixteen Lee, item two, Connolly?
Redner 10
Connolly, aye. And AB nineteen seventy seven Irwin, item four, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.