Idaho Points the Wrong Way Forward

The training and testing now offered to interpreters who work in the Idaho state courts is a positive develop ment that will hopefully improve the quality of language services provided to those who go before those courts. As such, it should be lauded and supported. But what seems on the surface like good news has a troubling underside: the announcement by the Idaho U.S. District Court of its intention to use those newly certified by the consortium test in lieu of federally certified interpreters.

Since the enactment of the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, which mandated that interpreters working in the federal courts be tested for competency, the only certification recognized by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has been the one it offered, now administered by the University of Arizona. The fact that no one in Idaho has been able to fulfill that requirement is no excuse for the federal courts to now adopt lower standards for determining interpreter competency. Even though some 700 candidates nationwide have passed the exam that U.S. District Court Clerk Cameron Burke considers "too hard," many states must still rely on flying in interpret ers from neighboring areas to comply with due process requirements, and they do so. To say that a much less rigorous exam--meant more as a screening device than a performance measure--is acceptable because providing federally certified interpreters "is not cost-effective," is to flout the law and the rules set by the very administration for which he works.

Most disturbing, however, is Mr. Burke's questioning "whether we need that level of competency for most court proceedings," among which he admits are trials. Even its creators are quick to point out that the exam only tests the minimum level of proficiency that a person must have to perform this highly demanding and specialized work. If Mr. Burke, for the sake of expediency--can set himself up as the arbiter of the "level of competency" that federal court interpreters must have, what is to stop every other local court administrator from doing the same? Why give a rigorous exam at all, if a screening test with much lower standards can give courts the cover they need to claim that the interpreters they contract are sufficiently qualified? And why would aspiring interpreters strive for the excellence that the federal certification exam demands, if in some states, the highest paying courts will not require that credential?

The example set by the Idaho federal court should be repudiated by all those who defend the due process rights of non-English speaking litigants.