The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently denied a proposal that would require interpreters in all municipal court proceedings, instead of only for juvenile matters. But the court will ask the Wisconsin Judicial Council to consider the issue.

The Judicial Council includes 21 volunteer members representing all three branches of government and other citizens.

In open administrative conference, following a Dec. 17 public hearing on Petition 24-02, the supreme court agreed with the concerns raised in the proposal but believed more information and a source of funding from the Legislature are necessary. A majority of the court hoped that the Judicial Council could help with those issues.

The issue fits in the council’s authority under Wis. Stat. section 758.13(2)(d), which allows the council to “[r]eceive, consider and in its discretion investigate suggestions from any source pertaining to the administration of justice and to make recommendations.”

The court has yet to release its written order to the petition.

Rule Petition

The Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Inc. (WJI) submitted Petition 24-02 in May 2024. It drew ten written comments before the recent hearing. All supported the concept. Of the ten written responses received, seven agreed wholeheartedly.

But three responses raised concerns about the petition’s specifics, especially about availability and the cost of more interpreters.

Wis. Stat. section 885.37(1) requires municipal courts to use interpreters as needed for parents, juveniles, and witnesses in offenses under the Juvenile Justice Code.

The WJI’s petition would have expanded that requirement to all proceedings. Evidentiary hearings would require a qualified interpreter to appear in person.

Non-evidentiary hearings could satisfy the requirement by “telephonic, video, or computerized service approved by the director of state courts.”

The WJI’s petition sought to eliminate the current problem “in which individuals with limited English proficiency … appear in court and even hear witness testimony without any interpreter, or at best through the interpretation of a child or other family member or friend lacking legal training.”

In these conditions, people with limited English proficiency “cannot meaningfully participate in their own proceedings,” the WJI wrote.

The effects of an adverse judgment can be life changing, the WJI said. Without the individual understanding what happened, perhaps even a fine won’t get paid, resulting in further consequences.

Municipal court proceedings lack ideal interpreters, according to the WJI. Its informal, non-scientific survey of Wisconsin municipal court judges yielded 49 responses representing 21% of the state’s municipal court judges.

Forty percent of the time, the judges ask the defendant to “bring a family member or friend to translate” on intakes and initial appearances, according to the survey, and 15% of the time judges ask for those same resources in evidentiary hearings and trials.

About 30% of respondents said the most common type of interpreter at evidentiary hearings is “an audio/visual service such as LanguageLine.” About 20% said the most common type of interpreter is an individual, in-person interpreter.

The WJI petitioned the supreme court under its authority to regulate courts. The supreme court in 1984 established that “the right to an interpreter is a procedural right.”

The petition resembles rules in Ohio courts, the WJI explained, and New Mexico has established rules requiring certified court interpreters in municipal courts.

Municipal Courts and the Languages They Hear

Wisconsin’s 229 municipal courts, in 2023, disposed of a total of 425,112 civil citation cases, according to Legal Action of Wisconsin in its comments supporting the petition. That compares with circuit courts that disposed of only 103,683 criminal cases.

Municipal courts handle offenses such as traffic violations, first-offense drunk driving, disorderly conduct, and trespass.

More than 3% of Wisconsin’s population in 2021 had limited English proficiency, said Legal Action of Wisconsin. That’s about 174,000 people.

That population speaks many languages, according to the Wisconsin Municipal Judges Association (WMJA), citing a 2022 report by the Committee to Improve Interpreting and Translation in Wisconsin Courts.

The top 10 languages based on number of hours of interpreters in circuit courts, the WMJA said from the 2022 report, are Spanish, American Sign Language, Hmong, Arabic, Burmese, Karen (spoken in Thailand and Myanmar), Somali, Swahili (East Africa), Russian, and Mandarin (China).

Municipal court adjudications may have a “significant impact” on individuals, according to the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation in Wisconsin (ACLU), such as loss of employment, garnished wages, driver’s license suspension, loss of housing, intercepted tax refunds, and even incarceration. The ACLU supported the petition.

For non-citizens, “an adverse municipal court judgment may result in loss of legal immigration status and possible removal from the country,” the ACLU explained.

Municipal courts often hear ordinance violations involving people passing through the area, the WMJA explained, increasing the potential range of languages requiring interpreters.

Efficiencies and Costs

Clearer communication, Judicare Legal Aid wrote, promises to “streamline court proceedings by reducing misunderstandings, procedural delays, and the need for retrials or appeals resulting from language barriers.” Judicare supported the petition.

By requiring qualified interpreters, the interpreters will understand the proceedings and legal language, unlike a layperson, or worse, a child, Legal Action of Wisconsin emphasized.

Interpreters come at a cost. The fee set by Wis. Stat. section 814.67(1)(a)2. is $10 per half day, but supply and demand limits whether a municipal court could find an interpreter so cheap.

Milwaukee County currently pays full-time interpreters from $26 to $30 an hour plus benefits, WMJA said, but the county is having trouble finding interpreters and has proposed raising the rate to $50 to $65 an hour.

The actual costs may be closer to $70 an hour for Spanish interpreters and $90 an hour for Hmong and Arabic interpreters, with mileage and other fees that could raise the total cost to more than $100 an hour, according to the Hon. Audrey K. Skwierawski, Director of State Courts, in its response to the petition.

Under Wis. Stat. section 814.65(1), municipal courts may charge a fee for each separate matter of between $15 and $38, the WJI reminded the supreme court in its response to written comments.

Rural municipalities located outside of county seats will find it harder to find the interpreter it needs, the WMJA said, unless municipal courts have more options in selecting an interpreter.

Judicare, which serves northern Wisconsin, noted its firsthand experience with “the challenges of providing language access in communities with large Hmong refugee populations and newly arriving immigrant families.”

The costs could result in fewer municipal courts, said the WMJA, which is “particularly concerned” that increased interpreter costs, without financial support, “could be enough to tip [municipalities] in favor of court elimination.”

Cases would then go to circuit court, increasing costs for both litigants and the courts, the WMJA warned.

Constructive Criticism

The WMJA agreed “with the two major premises of the petition” but opposed it as currently written.

“[W]e believe that most Wisconsin municipal courts are actively pursuing and providing justice for all participants, through a set of strong standards that emphasize fairness,” the WMJA commented. “Still, clarification and strengthening of our courts’ duties in these situations is appropriate, desired, and welcomed.”

Although the WMJA preferred that the Wisconsin Legislature address the issue and provide funding, the WMJA suggested an alternative rule proposal providing flexibility in interpreter sources.

Under the WMJA’s proposal, a municipal court may use an interpretation service for non-evidentiary hearings, and a nonqualified interpreter or interpretation service to communicate the date and time of the next court proceedings, among other procedural matters.

The League of Wisconsin Municipalities in its filed comments reinforced concerns about costs and available resources, especially for small municipalities.

Director of State Courts Skwierawski also suggested the proposed rule change needed more data to support it. In addition to learning the true costs of interpreters, no data exists to quantify the demand for interpreter services in municipal courts, critical elements in considering the rule change.