BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 11|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 11
Author: Migden (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 4/24/07
AYES: Corbett, Kuehl, Steinberg
NOES: Harman, Ackerman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-6, 5/31/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg, Yee
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Dutton, Runner, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Battin
SUBJECT : Domestic partnerships
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill revises the criteria for establishment
of a domestic partnership in California to allow
opposite-sex couples over 18 years of age to register as
domestic partners, by removing the current limitation that
at least one of the opposite-sex partners must be at least
62 years old. This bill makes a technical, conforming
change in one provision of the Probate Code.
ANALYSIS : Existing law permits the establishment of a
registered domestic partnership by filing a Declaration of
Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State (SOS).
CONTINUED
SB 11
Page
2
Existing law confers on registered domestic partners rights
and responsibilities that are the same as those conferred
on married couples, including the filing of joint state
income tax returns.
Existing law requires couples who wish to register as
domestic partners to meet the following criteria:
1. Both are over 18 years of age.
2. Both are members of the same sex or, if they are of
opposite sexes, one of them must qualify for Social
Security benefits (62 years of age and over).
3. Both have a common residence.
4. Neither person is married to someone else or is a member
of a domestic partnership with someone else that has not
been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
5. The two persons are not related by blood such that they
could not marry in this state.
6. Both are capable of consenting to the domestic
partnership. [Section 297 of the Family Code]
This bill deletes the requirement that domestic partners be
of the same sex or, if of different sexes, that one of them
be age 62 years or over.
This bill makes a conforming change in the Probate Code
that references the language in Section 297 of the Family
Code that this bill deletes from existing law.
Background
AB 26 (Migden), Chapter 588, Statutes of 1999, established
the domestic partnership registry within the SOS. To
register as domestic partners, same-sex couples and
opposite-sex couples, where one partner is age 62 or older:
(1) must have a common residence, (2) are not married to
other persons or in other domestic partnerships that have
not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity, (3)
are not related by blood such that they could not be
CONTINUED
SB 11
Page
3
married to each other in this state, (4) are at least 18
years of age, and (5) are capable of consenting to a
domestic partnership.
AB 205 (Goldberg), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2003,
significantly expanded the rights and responsibilities of
registered domestic partners, paralleling those of married
couples. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee
analysis, "Today, there are practically no differences in
treatment between married couples and domestic partners,
except for federal entitlements or benefits granted only to
opposite-sex couples who are married."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09
2009-10 Fund
Benefits Unknown, multimillion dollar
annualGF/LF/SF
costs (see comments below)
Tax revenue loss $7,000 $9,000
$11,000General
PERS/STRS: admin $140 $252
$252Special*
SOS: registration Potentially significant
costs, fully Special**
offset by filing fee revenues
FTB implementation $102 $205
$205General
* Public Employees Retirement Fund and Teachers
Retirement Fund
** Business Fees Fund
CONTINUED
SB 11
Page
4
The Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) estimates it
will require an additional two positions to support
workload increases resulting from new enrollments and
overall program growth as a result of this bill. The state
Teachers Retirement System (STRS) was unable to provide
administrative cost estimates or estimated retirement
benefits' impacts to the committee, but staff estimates
similar administrative costs for STRS as for PERS.
Projected costs for state government to provide medical,
dental, vision and retirement benefits to its employees'
dependents pursuant to this bill are unknown, but would be
significant. For purposes of a cost estimate, PERS
estimates that as many as 28,300 of its members could
potentially be in registered domestic partnerships pursuant
to this bill, but of that number, PERS projects state
enrollments to increase by 16,500, with 13,500 being the
domestic partner and the remainder dependents. Based on
these projections, state contributions for health, vision
and dental benefits for these members' dependents will
range from $46.2 million to $54.5 million annually.
The University of California (UC) estimates that if three
percent of its 144,900 employees and annuitants were to
register as domestic partners under this bill and then seek
to provide medical, dental and vision benefits through
their UC eligibility for their partners, costs to the UC
would be $12 million annually. For purposes of a cost
estimate, the UC further projected each domestic
partnership would seek to cover 1.7 children with benefits,
if so, additional benefits costs would be $4.7 million
annually. The California State University estimated that
if 10 percent of its 12,253 employees who were not married
were to register as a domestic partner, annual benefits
costs would exceed $500,000.
PERS was unable to provide specific impacts to retirement
benefits as a result of increased survivor benefits from
this bill becoming law, however, PERS notes that there have
only been three cases of heterosexual domestic partners
applying for pre-retirement death benefits since the
original domestic partner registry went into effect. STRS
was unable to provide any retirement benefit cost
information to the committee. UC has its own retirement
CONTINUED
SB 11
Page
5
plan, but it is unlikely this bill would have a fiscal
effect on it since opposite sex domestic partners are
already eligible for survivor benefits if they file a
"declaration of domestic partnership" with UC. Registry
with the state would satisfy the documentation requirement
for those benefits.
Costs for local governments to provide medical, dental,
vision and retirement benefits to their employees'
dependents as a result of this bill are unknown, but would
be significant.
The SOS indicated that while it is unknown how many
different-sex couples will choose to register as domestic
partners if this bill becomes law, the bill could drive
significantly increased costs and workload for associated
with providing additional information to the public as well
as reviewing and filing additional partnership
applications. Couples seeking to register a different-sex
domestic partnership must currently submit a $10 filing fee
along with their notarized application, the SOS is
authorized to set this fee via regulation to recoup costs
incurred with the registration program. SOS staff
indicates any programmatic cost increases associated with
this bill can be offset by filing fees, but it is likely
the SOS will need additional spending authority in coming
fiscal years. Costs for the SOS to modify forms and its
web site are minor and absorbable.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/31/07)
California NOW
California Nurses Association
California School Employees Association
California State Employees Association
California Teachers Association
City and County of San Francisco
City of Berkeley
Congress of California Seniors
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Equality California
Lambda Letters Project
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
CONTINUED
SB 11
Page
6
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/5/07)
Association of California Water Agencies
California Catholic Conference
Capitol Resource Institute
Concerned Women for America of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states that this bill
recognizes all committed couples, straight or same-sex,
respecting their freedom to choose what's best for their
families:
"There are over 4 million unmarried couples within the
United States who for many different reasons choose not
to get married. SB 11 is an equity measure recognizing
the diversity of family structures and the needs of
unmarried people, including people who choose not to
marry, cannot marry, or live together before marriage."
According to the author's office, there are 18 cities or
counties in California that have adopted domestic
partnership ordinances that include same-sex and
opposite-sex couples ages 18 and older. Those are the
cities of Arcata, Berkeley, Cathedral City, Davis, Laguna
Beach, Long Beach, Oakland, Palm Springs, Palo Alto,
Petaluma, Sacramento, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa
Monica, and West Hollywood, and the counties of Los
Angeles, Marin and Santa Barbara. All of these California
jurisdictions allow opposite-sex domestic partnerships.
The California Nurses Association, in support of this bill,
commends the author for providing straight couples with the
option of registering as domestic partners: "Throughout
the nation, there has been an increase in couples opting
for alternatives to marriage. More than half of couples in
the U.S. are living together and refraining from getting
married. People choose not to marry for economic,
philosophical, religious, and personal reasons. Family
structures have changed, society has changed, but
government has not kept up with the needs of modern day
families?.There is an increasing desire by straight couples
to enter into a domestic partnership. SB 11 recognizes all
committed couples, straight or same sex, respecting
people's freedom to choose and structure their families."
CONTINUED
SB 11
Page
7
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Catholic
Conference (CCC) opposes this bill because it would
"drastically increase the number of individuals who qualify
for domestic partnership benefits - creating yet more
confusion in society and the law." The CCC further states
that "[t]he various benefits that have historically been
accorded to spouses by government and society were given in
order to subsidize a nurturing environment for children.
When a male and a female form a couple and are married,
society views them as the progenitors, civilizers and
caretakers of the next generation. There are of course
exceptions to the rule, as in the case of married couples
who adopt their children or who have no children, but
society is best served when the benefits are tailored to
the ideal. However, these benefits were never intended to
be attached to individuals in other special relationships."
[Letter dated April 20, 2007]
Capitol Resource Institute, another opponent, contends:
"To grant domestic partnership rights to everyone is
degrading to the invaluable institution of traditional
marriage. With domestic partnership, couples will receive
all the benefits of marriage without actually being
married. This 'faux marriage' does not encourage couples
to get married and raise a healthy family."
RJG:mw 6/5/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED