An Act to amend 807.14 and 967.09 of the statutes; Relating to: interpreter action by telephone or live audiovisual means in civil or criminal proceedings.
Summary
SB147 would expand when courts in Wisconsin may allow interpreters to participate remotely by telephone or live audiovisual means. Under current law, remote interpreter participation is allowed in civil and criminal proceedings other than trials; this bill removes the trial exclusion, allowing a court, on request of a party, to permit an interpreter to serve remotely in any civil or criminal proceeding, including trials.
The bill amends two statutes: s. 807.14, governing interpreters in civil proceedings, and s. 967.09, governing interpreters in criminal proceedings. In practical terms, it would give courts and litigants more flexibility in securing interpreter services and could reduce delays, travel burdens, and logistical costs, especially in cases involving less common languages or limited local interpreter availability.
Impact
SB147 would change Wisconsin law by authorizing remote interpreter participation in trials as well as non-trial proceedings in both civil and criminal cases. It would broaden judicial discretion to approve telephone or live audiovisual interpretation and affect courts, litigants, and interpreters by making interpreter access more flexible and potentially more efficient.
Sentiment
The bill appears to be a procedural and administrative measure rather than a controversial policy change, and the available record does not show committee testimony or recorded votes indicating opposition or support. Its purpose suggests a generally practical, access-oriented approach focused on court efficiency and interpreter availability. The bill ultimately failed to concur pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, but the provided materials do not explain the reasons for that outcome.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or votes. The main issue implied by the bill text is whether remote interpretation should be allowed during trials, which may raise concerns about communication quality, fairness, or the ability to assess testimony in person. Supporters would likely emphasize access, speed, and cost savings, while any skeptics would focus on trial integrity and the reliability of remote interpretation.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 807.14 and 967.09 of the statutes; Relating to: interpreter action by telephone or live audiovisual means in civil or criminal proceedings.