Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.43
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.010 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state to secure the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of persons who, because of a non-English-speaking cultural background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who consequently cannot be fully protected in legal proceedings unless interpreters are available to assist them.
It is the intent of the legislature in the passage of this chapter to provide for the use and procedure for the appointment of such interpreters.
[ 2025 c 55 s 1; 1989 c 358 s 1. Formerly RCW 2.42.200.]

Notes:

Severability—1989 c 358: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 358 s 10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Tatyana Mason, V John Mason & Laurie Robertson, 497 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tatyana Mason, V John Mason & Laurie Robertson, 497 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “RCW 2.43.010. A “‘non-English-speaking person,’” is “any person involved in a legal proceeding who cannot readily speak or understand the English language.”
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 81 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 3× “See RCW 2.43.010. However, the legislature has also provided specific statutory guidance to define the contours of the rights to government paid services.”
KUSTURA v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 233 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 3× “See RCW 2.43.010. However, the legislature has also provided specific statutory guidance to define the contours of the rights to government paid services.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Khan, 184 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “RCW 2.43.010, .030, .040(2); State v. Gonzales-Morales, 138 Wn.”
State v. Morales, 269 P.3d 263 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “RCW 2.43.010 (emphasis added). The legislature has explicitly indicated a desire to ensure non-English-speaking persons are afforded the full protection of the law.”
In the Interest of Doe, 57 P.3d 447 (Haw. 2002). “See Wash. Rev.Code § 2.43.010 (2000) (providing for interpreters "to secure the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of persons who, because of a non-English-speaking cultural background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who…”
State v. Gonzales-Morales, 979 P.2d 826 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “" [22] It is also the declared policy of this state under RCW 2.43.010 to secure the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of persons who, because of a non-English speaking cultural background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who…”
State v. Gonzales-Morales, 138 Wash. 2d 374 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “” 22 It is also the declared policy of this state under RCW 2.43.010 to secure the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of persons who, because of a non-English speaking cultural background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who…”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 140 Wash. App. 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 2.43.010. ¶22 When a non-English-speaking person is a party to a legal proceeding, a “certified” interpreter must be appointed unless good cause is shown.”
State of Washington v. Mahadi H. Aljaffar, 392 P.3d 1070 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “2d 826 (1999) (citing RCW 2.43.010; U.S. Const. amend. VI). With respect to the Constitution, a criminal defendant’s right to confront witnesses and participate in court proceedings encompasses a non-English speaker’s right to competent interpretation services.”
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “104 (providing that a petition for review of a Department order "shall set forth in detail the grounds therefor and the party or parties filing the same shall be deemed to have waived all objections or irregularities not specifically set forth therein.”
State v. Teshome, 122 Wash. App. 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d at 379 (quoting RCW 2.43.010) (emphasis omitted). RCW 2.43.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.