It seems to me unless full translation services (aural and written) are officially mandated, Mrs. Cabrera might be limited in her effectiveness on behalf of her constituents.
It isn’t as if this is new territory.
Canada is officially bilingual, Switzerland is officially tri lingual and so on. Elected representatives in those countries have access to fully translated, official documents, can address their respective legislatures in their native tongue, knowing their words will be simultaneously translated and documents and legislation also can and is translated regularly.
Certainly, the mechanics exist. What is at question is the will- and that is as much financial as it is political.
For example, California spends a small fortune on translation of government services into dozens of languages. Is this the way to go? If a particularly ethnic district elects a represents a local representative, should we offer up translation and legal services to a relatively minor population? Probably not.
That said, Spanish is second to English as first language in the US with large Spanish speaking populations in every state. I see no issue with recognizing and dealing with that reality at the State level.