Wisconsin bill would allow court interpreters to work remotely during trials

Wisconsin Republicans are advancing a bill that could expand the role of virtual language interpretation in state courts.

Supporters say they hope to enable flexibility in a state with an unmet demand for qualified interpreters.

But opponents worry the changes could erode the rights of victims and defendants by making it easer for miscommunication to happen.

Under Wisconsin law, people with limited English proficiency have the right to a qualified interpreter when they appear before a circuit or appellate court.

Currently, those courts can only use tele-interpretation during some types of legal proceedings. During trials, interpreters need to appear in-person.

But, under a bill that cleared Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled Senate last month, interpreters could appear by telephone or videoconference even during trials.

“I think that we’re all aware of the staffing shortages and backlogs plaguing our court system, and additionally, county budgets are also feeling the pinch,” state Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, said during a hearing on the bill this spring.

In Wisconsin, the state partially reimburses counties for the costs of court interpreters. Although those rates of pay vary county-by-county, many local courts also reimburse interpreters for their mileage, and sometimes their driving time, before traveling to court.

Court interpreters across the state are in high demand, which in some cases, has forced judges to postpone cases while they search for a qualified interpreter. That’s especially true for interpreters in less commonly spoken languages.

In 2023, courts across Wisconsin billed for more than 26,200 hours of interpretation — a 27 percent increase compared to five years prior. 

“One way to help alleviate some of that pressure is to remove burdensome requirements that the state places upon our circuit courts,” said Wanggaard, who introduced the bill earlier this year.

Some say in-person interpretation is most effective during lengthy, complex trials

Under Wisconsin law, the right to an interpreter extends to witnesses, people accused of crimes, victims and their family members.

But some groups contend that right could be diminished if tele-interpretation is expanded. In written testimony opposing the bill, Elena Kruse of the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, said the changes could make it more difficult for a non-English speaking client to have a private, side conversation with their attorney.

And she noted that, compared to many pre-trial proceedings, trials are most often lengthy and complex.

“Jury trials, more than most other court proceedings, carry extremely high stakes: individuals’ liberty and freedoms,” Kruse wrote. “We are not willing to risk technical and logistical difficulties hindering a person’s ability to fully participate in the legal process, especially when their liberty is at stake.”

The American Civil Liberties of Union of Wisconsin and victims’ rights groups including the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault also registered against the bill. The Wisconsin Defense Counsel, which represents civil trial lawyers, registered in favor.

Nadya Rosen, an attorney with Disability Rights Wisconsin, says the proposal could be especially harmful to people who are deaf and hard of hearing.

American Sign Language relies on someone’s hand gestures and facial expressions, and Rosen said it can be difficult to fully grasp those visuals via video.

“We had a case recently in a rural county where there was a video interpreter, and the setup in the courtroom was such that the litigants were so far away from the camera that the ASL interpreters that were in a remote location were unable to see the faces of the people that they were supposed to be interpreting for,” Rosen said, adding the case had to be postponed until an in-person ASL interpreter could be appointed.

Rosen says unimpeded communication is especially important during a trial, when jurors are expected to decide whether or not they believe in the truthfulness of someone who’s testifying.

Christina Green, a freelance court interpreter who works in Wisconsin, echoed those concerns. Green says remote interpretation can be useful during brief legal proceedings. But, during trials, Green said she believes remote interpretation could actually lead to more delays because of technical issues.

“Most courthouses in Wisconsin have inadequate equipment, so they have low-quality cameras, low-quality microphones, screens that are not clear,” said Green, who sits on the board of the American Translators Association, a professional advocacy group.

Amendment would require all parties to agree to remote interpretation

In response to concerns about the bill, lawmakers agreed to add an amendment stipulating that remote interpretation could only be used during a trial if all parties in a case agree.

Even with that change, Rosen, of Disability Rights Wisconsin, says her group still opposes the bill. Rosen says the amendment puts the onus to request an in-person interpreter on the person who needs that service.

“Being a litigant in court can be a really difficult process, and you don’t want to slow things down,” she said. “You don’t want to be perceived as being a problem, and so having to assert your need for interpretation and quality interpretation can be just another barrier for people who need to be able to effectively communicate.”

Effort comes as other lawmakers push separate AI interpretation bill

Under Wanggaard’s bill, Wisconsin courts would still be required to use real, live people as interpreters even if some of those interpreters appear remotely.

But a separate, more-recently introduced bill would allow Wisconsin courts to use machine-assisted interpretation enabled by artificial intelligence. That AI option could be used in addition to or instead of human interpreters, the bill says.

“By integrating AI-assisted translation tools, courts can deliver faster, more efficient services to individuals with limited English proficiency while significantly reducing the costs associated with hiring human interpreters,” state Rep. Dave Maxey, R-New Berlin, and Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, wrote in a memo attached to a draft bill.

Green, who interprets in Spanish, French and Italian, said replacing human interpreters with AI could be disastrous. She says AI hallucinations and mistranslations could lead to lawsuits and overturned convictions.

“AI will always struggle with things like nuances in the legal language, specialized terminology, idiomatic expressions, Spanglish,” Green said. “AI may misinterpret the context, confuse the pronouns (and) introduce certain biases.”

Lawmakers formally introduced the AI interpretation bill on Friday. So far, the ACLU of Wisconsin has registered against it while the Wisconsin Counties Association has come out in favor.