California Postpones Bill to End Electronic Court Reporting Ban

news/californias-ab-882-shelved-preserving-due-process">

California‘s AB 882 Shelved, Senate Prioritizes Judicial Integrity Over Electronic Reporting

Archyde Staff Writer |
July 16,2025

California’s Assembly Bill 882,which proposed lifting a ban on electronic court reporting,has been temporarily halted. The Senate judiciary Committee decided to table the bill, acknowledging its failure to address the critical shortage of court reporters.

This decision comes after strong advocacy from the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA). NCRA President Keith R. Lemons previously communicated the organization’s firm opposition to AB 882 to California lawmakers and Governor Gavin Newsom.

Lemons argued that outsourcing court reporting duties to electronic means woudl compromise due process for Californians. he emphasized that this would undermine the rights of individuals who depend on the courts for fairness and resolution.

Colin Brehm, NCRA’s State Government Relations Manager, echoed these sentiments. He stated that lifting the ban would not solve the reporter shortage. Instead, it would create undue burdens for litigants.

Brehm added that such measures could undermine equitable access to justice. He congratulated Sacramento for its commitment to preserving judicial integrity.

The court reporter shortage in California is a long-standing issue. Electronic court reporting has been proposed as a potential solution by some, but concerns about accuracy and due process remain at the forefront of the debate.

Frequently Asked Questions About AB 882

What was California’s AB 882 about?

California’s AB 882 was a bill that aimed to lift the state’s ban on electronic court reporting.

Has AB 882 passed in California?

No, AB 882 was tabled by the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not passed.

Why was the bill tabled?

The bill was tabled because the Senate recognized that its measures failed to adequately address the court reporter shortage.

What is the NCRA’s stance on electronic court reporting?

The NCRA strongly opposes lifting the ban, arguing it could compromise due process and place undue burdens on litigants.

What are the concerns about electronic court reporting?

Concerns include the potential outsourcing of due process and undermining the rights of individuals relying on the courts for fairness.

What are your thoughts on this advancement? Share your opinions and join the conversation in the comments below!

What potential impacts could the shortage of stenographers have on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the California judicial system?

california Postpones Bill too End Electronic Court Reporting Ban

The Delay of AB 2760 and its Impact on Court Reporting

California lawmakers have opted to postpone a vote on Assembly Bill 2760 (AB 2760), legislation aimed at lifting the state’s longstanding ban on the use of electronic court reporting technology in many courtrooms. The bill, which sought to modernize the court reporting process and address a critical shortage of stenographers, will remain in the Assembly Appropriations Committee for the time being.This decision impacts the future of digital court reporting, voice writing, and the overall efficiency of the California judicial system.

Understanding the Existing Ban on Electronic Reporting

For decades,California has largely relied on traditional stenographic court reporting,where trained professionals use specialized machines to create verbatim transcripts. While highly accurate, this method is facing challenges:

Shortage of Stenographers: The number of certified stenographers is declining, leading to delays in transcript availability and increased costs.

High Costs: Traditional court reporting services are expensive, placing a burden on litigants and the court system.

Limited Accessibility: The reliance on stenographers can create logistical hurdles,particularly in rural areas.

AB 2760 aimed to address these issues by allowing the use of digital recording and voice writing technologies as alternatives to traditional stenography. This would have opened the door for more affordable and readily available court transcripts.

Key Provisions of AB 2760 (Now Delayed)

The proposed bill included several key provisions designed to ensure accuracy and accessibility while embracing electronic court reporting:

1. Permitted Technologies: The bill would have authorized the use of digital audio recording, voice writing, and computer-aided transcription (CAT) technology.
2. Certification Standards: It proposed establishing certification standards for digital court reporters and voice writers to ensure competency and accuracy.
3. Transcript Timelines: AB 2760 aimed to maintain timely transcript delivery, comparable to current standards for stenographic reporting.
4. Accessibility Requirements: The bill included provisions to ensure transcripts produced through electronic methods are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.
5. Pilot Programs: A phased implementation, possibly starting with pilot programs in select courts, was considered to assess the effectiveness of digital court reporting before statewide adoption.

Opposition and Concerns Driving the postponement

The postponement of AB 2760 is largely attributed to strong opposition from the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) and concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of electronic court reporting technologies. Key arguments against the bill include:

Accuracy Concerns: Opponents argue that voice writing and digital recording are less accurate than stenography,potentially leading to errors in legal records.

Job Security: The CCRA has voiced concerns about the potential displacement of stenographers if electronic reporting becomes widely adopted.

security of Recordings: Questions have been raised about the security and integrity of digital audio recordings and the potential for tampering.

Impact on the Legal record: Concerns exist regarding the completeness and reliability of the official court record when relying on technologies other than traditional stenography.

The Impact of the Delay on California Courts

The postponement of AB 2760 means that California courts will continue to grapple with the challenges of a stenographer shortage and rising court reporting costs.This delay impacts:

Case Backlogs: Limited court reporting availability can contribute to delays in case processing.

Litigant Costs: The high cost of stenographic transcripts remains a barrier to access to justice.

Modernization Efforts: The delay hinders efforts to modernize the California judicial system and embrace technological advancements.

remote Proceedings: The ability to efficiently and accurately record remote court proceedings is hampered by the existing restrictions.

What’s Next for Electronic Court Reporting in California?

While AB 2760 is currently stalled, the issue of electronic court reporting is unlikely to disappear. Several potential scenarios could unfold:

Revised Legislation: lawmakers may attempt to address the concerns raised by opponents and reintroduce a revised version of AB 2760.

Judicial Council Action: The California Judicial Council could explore administrative solutions to address the stenographer shortage and promote the use of digital recording in limited circumstances.

Continued Debate: The debate over electronic court reporting is expected to continue,with stakeholders on both sides advocating for their positions.

Focus on Hybrid Solutions: A potential compromise could involve a hybrid approach, combining stenography with digital recording and voice writing to create a more flexible and efficient court reporting system.

Resources for Further Data

California Legislative Information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/

California Court Reporters Association: https://ccra.net/

National Court Reporters Association: