1. HONORABLE PAUL R. VAN GRUNSVEN ATTY. CARMEL A. CAPATI WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT? TALKING TO LEGISLATORS & BUDGET PEOPLE ABOUT LANGUAGE ACCESS

2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Formulate ideas that “sell” language access in your jurisdiction. Be aware of messages that do not work well in this climate. Learn about different mechanisms to spread the big ideas.

3. WHAT LEGISLATORS AND BUDGET PEOPLE CARE ABOUT Legislators want reassurance that their constituents care about this issue Budget people want persuasive analysis that includes: Facts (e.g. LEP demographics) Figures (e.g. # of customers served) Funding alternatives (e.g. can a fee be imposed on the user?)

4. BIG IDEAS THAT SELL LANGUAGE ACCESS

5. BIG IDEA #1 Access to free and competent language services in the courts is a due process issue. YOU can talk about the process – don’t let them talk about the case.

6. WHAT’S DIFFERENT NOW FROM 10 YEARS AGO?

7. BIG IDEA #2 Access to free and competent language services in the courts is a bipartisan issue. Many stakeholders are affected by substandard interpreter services. They are your natural allies.

8. WISCONSIN’S INTERPRETER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (EARLY DAYS) Judges: Appellate, circuit, municipal courts District Attorney & Public Defender Court Administrators Clerks of Court (county leaders) Law Enforcement Executive Agency Representatives: Refugee Services Office; Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Interpreters: ASL and Spanish Community leaders Hmong and Deaf communities Legislators Rep. Scott Walker (then) Gov. Scott Walker (now)

9. BIG IDEA #3 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is a national origin issue AND a disability issue. Helpful to define LEP as such in state statutes.

10. WIS. STAT. §885.38(1)(B)1&2 (b)"Limited English proficiency" means any of the following: 1. The inability, because of the use of a language other than English, to adequately understand or communicate effectively in English in a court proceeding. 2. The inability, due to a speech impairment, hearing loss, deafness, deaf-blindness, or other disability, to adequately hear, understand, or communicate effectively in English in a court proceeding.

11. ORIGINS OF WISCONSIN’S LANGUAGE ACCESS PROGRAM Sign language and deaf community More cases have been litigated under the ADA than Title VI as it relates to denial of access based upon language Deaf and hard of hearing individuals have a stronger voice than some immigrants: VOTE

12. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) “No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the service, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity”

13. REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 [N]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability…shall by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…

14. LAWSUITS INVOLVING THE A.D.A. IMPACT ALL FACETS OF SOCIETY Hospitals - 90 F. Supp.3d 493 Prisons & Houses of Correction – 408 S.W.3d 566 Law Enforcement – 296 Ill. App.3d 127 Psychiatric Facilities & Mental Health Hospitals – 746 F.Supp.2d 454 Movie Theaters – 173Wash.App. 174 Universities & Colleges – 475 F. Supp.2d 310

15. BIG IDEA #4 The Judicial Branch is an EQUAL branch of government that requires sufficient funding for core court services. Language access services = core court services.

16. ACCESS TO LANGUAGE SERVICES = ACCESS TO JUSTICE No different than: A judge, a bailiff A ramp to the courthouse Assisted listening device for a hard of hearing juror Reader for a blind litigant

17. BIG IDEA #5 Less funding from the state for language access services puts a greater strain on the counties’ budgets if courts are funded by a mix of both state and local monies. Using unqualified interpreter services leads to a greater likelihood of appeals which will cost more in the end.

18. NOT SO GREAT IDEAS & OTHER CHALLENGES

19. NOT SO GREAT IDEA #1 US DOJ is going to investigate our courts Courts run the risk of losing federal funding

20. NOT SO GREAT IDEA #2 Language access is an immigrant rights issue. The Rhetoric : You mean “those illegals” who are traveling through our county harvesting acres upon acres of drugs?

21. OTHER CHALLENGES State legislators may not be lawyers. State legislators may not understand the purpose of the courts and how they work. Everything is personal.

22. HOW TO SPREAD THE BIG IDEAS

23. THE BIG SQUEEZE Strong leadership from the top. Vocal and active organization from the bottom

24. LEADERSHIP FROM THE TOP Unified and credible Supreme Court is essential to deliver the message personally to legislative and executive branches. Trial court judges must be involved in selling the message. Judges in smaller rural counties may carry great political weight.

25. ORAL WORD FROM THE BOTTOM Joint Finance Committee (JFC) public hearings held around WI: Coordinated people’s testimony at each location Created and circulated talking points Stayed on message and WAITED A clerk of court, judge, and an interpreter role-played a courtroom scenario conducted in Spanish. Legislature had to provide sign language interpreters for Deaf people who testified Did not ask interpreters to testify (potentially viewed as self-serving)

26. WHO DELIVERED THE MESSAGE AND MADE PERSONAL CONNECTIONS Judges Bilingual attorneys Prosecutors Public defenders Legal Aid attorneys Clerks of court, court administrators Religious leaders Advocates: DV, disability, victim, immigrant Law enforcement Community groups; ethnic associations People who used interpreters (e.g. LEP victims of DV)

27. SAMPLE TALKING POINTS (2007) What We Asked For : Statutes should be changed to require interpreters in all case types Divorces, child custody and support, debt collection, evictions and other civil matters are just as important to people’s lives and rights as criminal cases If these cases aren’t properly handled, they can lead to criminal consequences When courts don’t provide interpreters, parties use family members as interpreters which compromise the neutrality of the proceedings

28. WRITTEN WORD FROM THE BOTTOM County Board resolution Letters from Community Based Organizations: Provided template letter Mobilized interpreters to write their legislators when we heard legislators were considering cutting reimbursement funds(2015) Provided email with specific language and email addresses (cut and paste) and hand- delivered letters to legislators mailboxes

29. GENERAL ADVICE ON TALKING POINTS AND SPEECHES TO BUDGET PEOPLE State the request (statutory change or spending authority) Explain how what you are asking for is going to fix the problem or reach the desired outcome. Convince them why the outcome is in fact desire-able. Why should they want this as badly as you do? State the problem

30. HOW HAS WISCONSIN DONE OVER THE YEARS? WE’RE SURE OTHER STATES HAVE HAD SIMILAR SUCCESSES

31. POTS OF MONEY THAT RUN OUR LANGUAGE ACCESS PROGRAM Court Interpreter Program Position (that’s me) State Reimbursement to Counties for Direct Services Interpreter Testing and Training

32. Biennial Budget What HappenedLegislatureGovernor 2005-2007Court Interpreter Program position created RepublicanDemocrat 2007-2009Statutes changed to require interpreters in ALL case types; indigency requirement removed Democrat (Senate); Republican (Assembly) Democrat 2009-2011Increase in state reimbursement to counties for direct services DemocratRepublican 2011-2013Increase in state reimbursement to counties for direct services Republican 2013-2015Increase in state reimbursement to counties for direct services Republican 2015-2017Funding amounts remain at same levels Republican

33. WHAT HAS AND HAS NOT WORKED IN YOUR STATE?