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) **************