GR 9 COVER SHEET

(A)         Name of Proponent: Washington State Supreme Court Interpreter Commission

(B)         Spokespersons: Judge Mafe Rajul, Chair, Interpreter Commission, Superior Court Judges Representative; Judge Matthew Antush, Interpreter Commission Issues Committee Chairperson, District and Municipal Court Judges Association Representative; Kristi Cruz, Attorney Representative, Interpreter Commission; Donna Walker, ASL Interpreter Representative, Interpreter Commission; Luisa Gracia Camón, Interpreter Representative, Interpreter Commission; and Diana Noman, Interpreter Representative, Interpreter Commission.

Purpose: To make amendments regarding the use of remote interpreting services during court proceedings to provide clarification, including the application of the rule to persons with hearing loss and to court participants. The suggested rule changes achieve the following:

1.      It changes the title of the rule to reflect the use of a service, rather than the service itself.

2.      It removes the requirement to conduct a preliminary determination for non-evidentiary hearings.

3.      It removes the wording “fully and meaningfully participate,” because this language is not defined. 

4.      It clarifies that interpreter services must be provided to all limited English-proficient persons and persons with hearing loss involved in a legal proceeding, which may be litigants, but also parents, witnesses, guardians, observers etc.

5.      The requirement to provide documents in advance to interpreters was edited to remove the requirement as it pertains to parties, while leaving in the option to provide time at the hearing for an interpreter to review documents when courts are not able to provide them in advance.

6.      It clarifies the section on recordings to remove the first sentence referring to court records as that is stated in a different court Rule. The proposed edits then focus on allowing parties to request a recording of the simultaneous interpretation itself and allows for flexibility as to how a court chooses to create such a recording.

7.      It inserts individual Comments to follow each rule, rather than place all the Comments at the end, which makes the intent and purpose of each individual section of the rule more closely paired to the rule language for comprehension and application.

(D)        Hearing: Not recommended.

(E)       Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is requested by the Commission.