BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                           Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
                              2009-2010 Regular Session


           SB 1233 (Oropeza)
          As Amended March 22, 2010
          Hearing Date: April 13, 2010
          Fiscal: Yes
          Urgency: No
          KB:jd
                    

                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                            Confidential Address Programs

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          This bill, sponsored by the Secretary of State, would remove the  
          sunset for California's Safe at Home program and require that  
          the Secretary of State permanently retain name change records  
          for program participants. 

                                     BACKGROUND  

          The Safe at Home project, created by SB 489 (Alpert, Chapter  
          1005, Statutes of 1998) allows victims of domestic violence or  
          stalking to apply to the Secretary of State to request an  
          alternate address to be used in public records.  The purpose of  
          that program is to "enable state and local agencies to respond  
          to requests for public records without disclosing the changed  
          name or location of a victim of domestic violence or stalking .  
          . ." (Gov. Code Sec. 6205.)  The Secretary of State is tasked  
          with providing a substitute, publicly accessible address for  
          these victims while protecting their actual residences or  
          locations.  The Secretary also acts as the program participants'  
          agent for service of process and forwards mail received at the  
          substitute address provided.  A program participant, once  
          certified, may stay in the program for four years, after which  
          re-certification is required.  

          In 2002, the Safe at Home program was expanded to include  
          reproductive health care services providers, employees,  
          volunteers, and patients with the purpose of preventing  
          potential acts of violence from being committed against  
                                                                (more)



          SB 1233 (Oropeza)
          Page 2 of ?



          providers, employees, and volunteers who assist in the provision  
          of reproductive health care services and the patients seeking  
          those services.  (AB 797 (Shelley, Chapter 380, Statutes of  
          2002).)  According to the Safe at Home 2009 Legislative Report,  
          there are 2,437 active participants in the program, and 4,974  
          participants have been served since the program's inception in  
          1999.  The original 2005 sunset date for the Safe at Home  
          Program has been extended twice.  First, AB 797 extended the  
          sunset date to January 1, 2008.  Assembly Bill 2169 (Montanez,  
          Chapter 475, Statutes of 2006) subsequently extended it until  
          January 1, 2013.  This bill would remove the sunset for the Safe  
          at Home Program, thereby making it permanent.  It would also  
          require that the Secretary of State permanently retain name  
          change records for program participants. 

          This bill was approved by the Senate Elections, Reapportionment,  
          and Constitutional Amendments Committee on April 6, 2010 by a  
          vote of 5-0.

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
          
          1.Existing law  establishes, until January 1, 2013, an address  
            confidentiality program to which victims of domestic violence,  
            sexual assault, or stalking may apply by completing an  
            application in person at a community-based victims' assistance  
            program.  The application is approved by the Secretary of  
            State for the purpose of enabling state and local agencies to  
            respond to requests for public records without disclosing a  
            program participant's residence address contained in any  
            public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of  
            identity for that person.  (Gov. Code Sec. 6205 et seq.)  

             Existing law  establishes, until January 1, 2013, a similar  
            address confidentiality program for reproductive health care  
            services providers, employees, volunteers, and patients.   
            (Gov. Code Sec. 6215 et seq.)

             Existing law  provides that the voter registration of a  
            participant in an address confidentiality program is  
            confidential, and requires the Secretary of State to act as  
            that person's agent for service of process, and to designate a  
            substitute mailing address for participants.  (Gov. Code Sec.  
            6215.6.; Elec. Code Sec. 2166.5.)

             Existing law  , until January 1, 2013 provides that any person  
            filing with the county elections official a new affidavit of  
                                                                      



          SB 1233 (Oropeza)
          Page 3 of ?



            registration or reregistration who is a participant in the  
            address confidentiality programs may have the information  
            relating to his or her residence address, telephone number,  
            and email address appearing on the affidavit declared  
            confidential.  (Elec. Code Sec. 2166.5.)

             This bill  would remove the sunset from the address  
            confidentiality programs, and extend the provisions of the  
            programs indefinitely.

             This bill  would remove the sunset on the voter confidentiality  
            provisions, and extend them indefinitely.  

           2.Existing law  provides that any records or documents pertaining  
            to a program participant shall be retained and held  
            confidential for a period of three years after termination of  
            certification of participation in the program, and then  
            destroyed, as specified.  (Gov. Code Sec. 6206.5.)

             This bill  would provide an exemption to those provisions for  
            change of name records, which would be retained permanently.  

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.   Stated need for the bill  
          
          The author states:  

            Since its inception in 1999, the Safe at Home Program has  
            helped protect the identities of nearly 3,800 survivors of  
            stalking, and sexual assault, as well as reproductive health  
            care doctors, nurses, volunteers and patients.  

            Repealing the sunset and making Safe at Home a permanent  
            program will provide certainty to participants that their  
            anonymity will be permanently protected.

            Safe at Home participants often legally change their name.   
            Existing law requires the old name to be removed from court  
            records and the new name to be filed with the Secretary of  
            State.  As a result, the Secretary of State maintains the only  
            complete record of the participant's confidential name change.  
             However, current law also requires ? all closed or terminated  
            Safe at Home case files to be shredded after three years.   
            That means, Safe at Home participants who opt to legally file  
            and complete a confidential change of name risk losing all  
                                                                      



          SB 1233 (Oropeza)
          Page 4 of ?



            records pertaining to their past name, if they leave the  
            program.

          2.   No opposition to the removal of the sunset provision   

          SB 489, which created the Safe at Home project, included the  
          sunset provision to apparently address concerns raised about the  
          cost and appropriateness of the Secretary of State to administer  
          the program.  

          In the September 11, 1998 Senate Floor Analysis for SB 489, the  
          Department of Finance, in opposition, is quoted as stating:

            While we appreciate the need to enhance the protection of  
            domestic violence victims, we note that it is questionable as  
            to whether or not it is appropriate for a state agency to  
            administer a program such as the one this bill would create.   
            We further question whether the Secretary of State is the  
            appropriate agency to implement and manage such a program  
            since it is not at all typical of the programs and workload  
            the Secretary of State currently manages.  To the extent this  
            bill requires the Secretary of State to create new operating  
            systems, and requires additional training and security  
            systems, we believe it could hamper the effectiveness of  
            current Secretary of State programs.

          A prior extension of the sunset date by SB 797 also received  
          opposition from the Secretary of State due to concerns about  
          cost.  Those concerns appeared to be centered on the addition of  
          reproductive health care service providers, employees,  
          volunteers or patients to the program.  Assembly Bill 2169 of  
          the 2005-2006 Legislative Session would have removed the sunset  
          entirely, but instead extended the program to 2013 due to  
          concerns that a separate measure (SB 1062 (Bowen)) which  
          included victims of sexual assault in the programs would  
          significantly increase the program's population and cost.

          In contrast, SB 1233 has received no opposition and the previous  
          concerns about the cost of administering the program do not  
          appear to present, or are arguably outweighed by the  
          demonstrated benefits of the program.  Furthermore, as noted by  
          the Secretary of State's Safe at Home Legislative Report, the  
          economic crisis and a rise in domestic violence cases has  
          increased the demand for victim assistance and information.  By  
          permanently establishing the address confidentiality programs,  
          the state can assure participants that their anonymity, and thus  
                                                                      



          SB 1233 (Oropeza)
          Page 5 of ?



          their safety, is not in jeopardy.

         3.Bill would require permanent retention of name change records
           
          Under current law, if a proceeding for a change of name is  
          commenced by the filing of a petition, the court is required to  
          issue an order directing all persons interested in the matter to  
          show cause as to why the application for change of name should  
          not be granted.  (Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 1277.)  A copy of the  
          order to show cause must also be published in a newspaper of  
          general circulation published in the county.  (Id.)  However, if  
          the petitioner is a participant in the address confidentiality  
          (Safe at Home) program, the action is exempt from the  
          requirement for publication.  (Id.)  Additionally, the court is  
          required to keep confidential the current legal name of the  
          petitioner and prohibited from publishing that name by any means  
          or in any public forum.  (Id.)  In lieu of reciting the proposed  
          name, the court is required to indicate that the proposed name  
          is confidential and will be on file with the Secretary of State  
          pursuant to the provisions of the address confidentiality  
          program.  (Id.)  

          Thus, the Secretary of State currently maintains the only  
          complete record of a program participant's confidential name  
          change.  However, as noted in the author's statement, the  
          Secretary of State is also required to destroy closed or  
          terminated Safe at Home case files after three years.  This can  
          result in the destruction of all records pertaining to a  
          participant's previous name if the participant chooses to opt  
          out of the program.  Accordingly, this bill would require the  
          Secretary of State to permanently maintain records pertaining to  
          confidential name changes of program participants, thereby  
          ensuring that the sole complete records of a participant's prior  
          name are not lost forever.  This is consistent with the  
          requirements currently imposed on trial court clerks with  
          respect to the maintenance of name change court records for  
          individuals who are not participants in the Safe at Home  
          program.  (Gov. Code Sec. 68152(b).)


           Support  :  Junior Leagues of California, State Public Affairs  
          Committee 

           Opposition  :  None Known
           
                                       HISTORY
                                                                      



          SB 1233 (Oropeza)
          Page 6 of ?



           
           Source  :  Secretary of the State Debra Bowen

           Related Pending Legislation  :  None Known

           Prior Legislation  :

          SB 489 (Alpert, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 1998) established the  
                             Safe at Home program.

          SB 1318 (Alpert, Chapter 562, Statutes of 2000) extended the  
          Safe at Home project to victims of stalking, and revised  
          procedures relating to termination of certification of  
          participants. 

          AB 205 (Leach, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2000) extended Safe at  
          Home protections to an individual's name change.

          AB 797 (Shelley, Chapter 380, Statutes of 2002) extended the  
          sunset date from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2008.

          AB 2169 (Montanez, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2006) extended the  
          sunset date from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2013.

          AB 2304 (Plescia, Chapter 586, Statutes of 2008) required courts  
          to keep confidential the current legal name of the petitioner  
          and prohibited the court from publishing that name by any means  
          or in any public forum when the petition for name change is by a  
          participant in the address confidentiality program

           Prior Vote  :  Senate Elections, Reapportionment, and  
          Constitutional Amendments Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)

                                   **************