An Act to amend 885.37 (1), 885.37 (3) (b) and 885.38 (3) (a) (intro.); to create 1.101 of the statutes; Relating to: establishing English as the official state language, use of artificial intelligence or other machine-assisted translation tools in lieu of appointing English language interpreters, and use of English for governmental oral and written communication and for nongovernmental purposes. (FE)
AB377 would establish English as the official state language of Wisconsin and create a new statutory section governing the use of English in state and local government operations. The bill directs that, unless another law specifically requires otherwise, oral and written communications by state agencies and local governmental units must generally be in English, while allowing other languages in limited circumstances tied to a particular case, program, or responsibility. It also permits government officers and employees to use another language when necessary for specified purposes, including protecting health, safety, or liberty; teaching or studying another language; protecting criminal defendants or crime victims; promoting trade or tourism; conducting census-related activities; complying with disability education law; using proper names or terms of art; and meeting federal or state constitutional requirements.
The bill also authorizes state and local entities, when they are otherwise required or authorized to appoint an English-language interpreter, to provide access to artificial intelligence or other machine-assisted translation tools instead of appointing a human interpreter. In addition, it bars state and local government from prohibiting a person from becoming proficient in any language or restricting the use of any language for nongovernmental purposes. The bill amends existing interpreter statutes for municipal court, administrative contested cases, and court proceedings to cross-reference the new AI or machine-assisted translation option.
Its legal impact would be to add a formal official-language policy to Wisconsin law and to modify how courts and agencies handle language-access obligations. It would affect state agencies, local governmental units, courts, and administrative proceedings by narrowing the default use of non-English communication in government while preserving several exceptions and interpreter rights. It would also create a new statutory basis for using automated translation tools in place of appointed interpreters in some circumstances, potentially affecting how public entities provide language access and manage related costs.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress appears mixed but procedurally favorable in the Assembly, where it passed 51-45. The bill ultimately failed to advance after not concurring pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not become law. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded committee debate in the supplied materials, but the close Assembly vote suggests the proposal was politically divisive.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between promoting English as the official language and preserving access for people with limited English proficiency. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to standardize government communication and reduce costs by allowing AI-based translation tools, while opponents would likely be concerned about access to services, due process, and the reliability of machine translation in legal and public-service settings. The bill’s exceptions for health, safety, criminal justice, disability education, and constitutional compliance suggest an attempt to address those concerns, but the overall policy shift toward English-only default government communication remains the central issue.
AB377 would create s. 1.101 of the Wisconsin statutes, formally declaring English the official state language and imposing a general English-language requirement on state and local governmental communications, subject to specified exceptions. It would also amend interpreter statutes in municipal court, administrative contested cases, and court proceedings to allow AI or other machine-assisted translation tools to be used in lieu of appointing an English-language interpreter when law otherwise authorizes or requires an interpreter. The bill would therefore alter language-access practices for courts and agencies, while preserving certain rights and exceptions for limited-English-proficient individuals and other specified circumstances.
The bill appears to have been supported by a majority in the Assembly, where it passed 51-45, but it did not ultimately become law because it failed to concur in the Senate process. With no committee transcripts available, the record does not show detailed debate, but the close vote indicates substantial disagreement. Overall, the sentiment around the bill was likely polarized, with supporters favoring an official English policy and expanded use of translation technology, and opponents concerned about access, fairness, and the practical reliability of machine-assisted translation.
The main contention is between proponents of an English-only default for government and advocates for language access and multilingual public services. Supporters likely emphasize administrative uniformity, cost savings, and the symbolic value of making English the official state language, while critics likely focus on the risk that limiting non-English communication could hinder access to courts, agencies, and public programs for people with limited English proficiency. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s authorization of AI or machine-assisted translation in place of human interpreters, which raises concerns about accuracy, confidentiality, due process, and whether automated tools can adequately substitute for qualified interpreters in legal and governmental settings.