874C8090A08D28DC87258BD30061994F Hearing Summary

Chair Rutinel read into the record the charge statement for the committee, which is: "On or before December 15, 2024, the advisory board shall submit a report to the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council that includes a summary of the work accomplished by the advisory board, the findings of the study, and any legislative recommendations to the General Assembly concerning matters studies by the advisory board."

 

Chair Rutinel requested that members make comments on which recommendations they feel should be included in the final report and which do not rise to the level of being included.



The members discussed the need for data analysis or a needs assessment to determine when and how peole use legislative services the most and where the largest gaps in language access exist. They talked about having a new board established to continue the work of the LAAB going forward to ensure that the recommendations of the LAAB are followed through on and implemented.

 

The members discussed including a recommendation for a community-led or stakeholder-led group that continues to meet to and conduct focus groups and community tours to better understand where the gaps exist and what the community continues to need.



The members talked about how to implement certain recommendations such as the use of the LanguageLine and Wordly AI, and the need to have some sort of notice requirement for requesting interpretation services, how to use AI more appropriately and accurately, and the need to make sure that signs in polling places about voting information in other languages are visible.

The board discussed what types of guarantees a human interpreter or translator would provide in terms of accuracy, and agreed that since there are currently no real regulations around this profession, one of the recommendations in the final report might be that DORA start regulating interpretors and translators. They spoke about the need to make sure to use AI in a safe, reliable, and approachable way that involves some sort of review for mistakes and inconsistencies.



Some members agreed that if the General Assembly had a language access office or person, that person would be able to assess the demands of different language access needs and determine available services within financial constraints. They discussed the trade off between accessibility and accuracy, and whether it is more important to provide more and wider language access (which would mean utlitizing AI) or more important to ensure accuracy (which would be using humans).

 

The committee took a brief recess.

The board members took a lunch break.

Chair Rutinel read out loud the following draft motion: "The Language Access Advisory Board recommends that our report reflect the valuable input received from grassroots organizations over recent meetings, documenting their identified language-related barriers and accessibility needs. We further recommend an analysis of practices shared by other states, detailing available services and indicating whether Colorado currently provides comparable support. To build on this foundation, the Board endorses a comprehensive and sustainable needs assessment, prioritizing feedback from Limited English Proficiency (LEP) communities, stakeholders, language access experts, and data analytics. This assessment should identify high-impact areas for accessibility improvements, explore cost-effective options like automation and translation tools, and incorporate a phased, scalable approach to allow growth as resources expand. Additionally, public engagement—through focus groups, town halls, and multilingual surveys—should gather community insights, while consideration of training and licensing standards will ensure quality in translation and interpretation services. This approach will provide a robust structure for continuous improvement in language access across Colorado’s legislative processes."

The board members made comments on the draft motion. They discussed changing the word "licensing" to "credentials" or "licensing standards" and whether to recommend that the Executive Committee pursue an RFP for language services.

The board discussed changes to the proposed motion.

Chair Rutinel read the next draft motion to be discussed: "The Language Access Advisory Board recommends that the ballot information booklet (“blue book”) be made more accessible to residents with limited English proficiency by expanding both distribution and translation options. First, the legislature should continue automatic distribution of bilingual (English-Spanish) blue books to all Voting Rights Act (VRA) counties. For other counties, access to bilingual blue books should be available upon request through accessible options like a QR code, a request postcard within the English-only blue book, a hotline, or an online form.



Spanish should remain the priority language for translation, but we recommend exploring translations into additional languages based on demonstrated community demand. Additionally, the legislature should consider a robust online option to access translated versions of the blue book on demand, which could supplement print distribution and help manage costs. This strategy will ensure that vital voter information reaches all communities equitably while allowing for flexible, cost-effective solutions."