An Act to renumber 807.14; to renumber and amend 967.09; to create 807.14 (2), 885.37 (6), 885.38 (9) and 967.09 (2) of the statutes; Relating to: the use of artificial intelligence or other machine assisted translation in court proceedings and of telephone or live audiovisual interpretation in criminal trials. (FE)
AB292 would authorize Wisconsin courts, municipal courts, and administrative agencies to use artificial intelligence or other machine-assisted translation in place of, or alongside, a human interpreter in a range of proceedings. The bill applies this authority to civil cases, municipal proceedings, administrative contested cases, and criminal proceedings, and it also extends existing telephone or live audiovisual interpretation options into criminal trials.
The bill makes several conforming changes to the statutes governing interpretation in court. It renumbers current provisions and creates new subsections allowing courts to permit machine-assisted translation without requiring the waiver procedures that otherwise apply in some interpretation settings. In criminal matters, it also broadens current law so that interpreters may appear by telephone or live audiovisual means not only in nontrial proceedings, but in trials as well.
AB292 would change Wisconsin law by expressly permitting AI-based or other machine-assisted translation in civil, municipal, administrative, and criminal proceedings, subject to court approval. It would also expand the use of remote interpretation technology in criminal trials and remove waiver requirements for certain uses of machine-assisted translation. The bill would affect courts, municipal courts, administrative agencies, litigants, criminal defendants, and interpreters by giving judges more flexibility in how language access services are provided.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history indicating debate, but the bill’s introduction suggests an effort to modernize court interpretation practices and expand access through technology. Because the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, it did not become law. Overall, the measure appears to have been framed as a procedural and technological update rather than a major policy overhaul.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the reliability, accuracy, confidentiality, and fairness of artificial intelligence or machine-assisted translation compared with human interpreters, especially in criminal trials where due process concerns are heightened. Supporters would likely emphasize efficiency, availability, and cost savings, while opponents or skeptics may worry about mistranslation, bias, and the adequacy of remote or automated interpretation for defendants and non-English speakers. The bill text itself does not include recorded objections, so these concerns are inferred from the subject matter rather than documented debate.