BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Noreen Evans, Chair 2011-2012 Regular Session SB 1082 (Corbett) As Amended April 9, 2012 Hearing Date: April 17, 2012 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No RD SUBJECT Protection of Victims: Address Confidentiality DESCRIPTION Existing law creates the "Safe at Home" address confidentiality program for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, as well as reproductive health care providers, employees, volunteers and patients. The program is administered by the Secretary of State (SOS). This bill, sponsored by the SOS, would amend existing law to require that applicants seeking enrollment in these programs be domiciled in California, and would provide the SOS the authority to not renew the certification of a program participant who has abandoned his or her domicile in California. The bill would also authorize a minor program participant to renew his or her participation upon reaching 18 years of age, following the renewal procedure established by the SOS under the office's existing statutory authority. Additionally, this bill would modify the permissible grounds for early termination of a participant's certification in the program by the SOS, while providing for an extended period of time to appeal an intended termination from five days to 30 days. Lastly, the bill would permit the SOS to handle or forward packages for program participants in the SOS's discretion and make other non-substantive changes. BACKGROUND With the passage of SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), the California State Legislature established the Safe at Home (more) SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 2 of ? program within the Office of the Secretary of State to allow victims of domestic violence to apply for a substitute address to be used in public records in order to prevent their assailants, or potential assailants, from finding their work or home address. Through subsequent legislation, the program has been expanded to include victims of sexual assault, stalking, and reproductive health care service providers, employees, volunteers and patients. (See SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 2000) and AB 797 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002).) Upon successful application, a program participant is certified to remain in the program for four years, subject to early termination or withdrawal, and must re-certify pursuant to the SOS's renewal process if he or she wishes to continue in the program beyond the four-year enrollment period. For victims not yet of the age of majority or incapacitated persons, a parent or guardian may apply to enroll the victim into the program. This bill seeks to provide further clarity with respect to certain requirements of the program to better ensure the success of the program into the future. This includes clarifying that eligibility for the program requires being domiciled in California, as specified; that minors need not newly apply to the program upon turning 18 years of age, and may instead renew their enrollment pursuant to the Secretary of State's renewal process; and providing the Secretary of State the authority to use its discretion in handling or forwarding non-first class or government mail to victims so that essential documents and items are not delayed in reaching program participants. The bill also allows for an extended timeframe in which a person may appeal an intended termination, and would extend the right to appeal termination where there is an allegation that false information was used in an application. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW 1. Existing law establishes an address confidentiality (or "Safe at Home") program within the Office of the Secretary of State in order to enable state and local agencies to both accept and respond to requests for public records without disclosing the changed name or address of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Existing law permits any such adult victim, or parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person, to apply through a community-based victims' assistance program to have an address designated by the Secretary of State as his or her substitute mailing address. (Gov. Code Sec. 6205 et seq.) Existing law SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 3 of ? similarly allows reproductive health care providers, employees, volunteers, and patients to apply to the address confidentiality program through a community-based victims' assistance program, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6215 et seq.) Existing law defines "domicile" to mean domicile of a person is that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a given time, a person may have only one domicile. (Elec. Code Sec. 349.) This bill would require that an applicant be domiciled in California and would define "domicile" to have the same meaning as given under Section 349 of the Elections Code. This bill would allow the Secretary of State to refuse to renew a program participant's certification if the adult program participant or the parent or guardian acting on behalf of the minor or incapacitated person has abandoned his or her domicile in this state. 2. Existing law requires that the Secretary of State certify a successful applicant as a program participant for four years following the date of filing, unless the certification is withdrawn or invalidated before that date, except reproductive health care services facilities volunteers shall be certified until six months from the last date of volunteering with the facility. Existing law also provides that the Secretary of State shall establish for a renewal procedure. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206(c), 6215.2(e).) This bill would permit a minor program participant who reaches 18 years of during his or her enrollment to renew as an adult following the renewal procedures established by the Secretary of State. 3. Existing law allows a participant to withdraw from the Safe at Home program, and authorizes the address confidentiality program manager to terminate a participant's certification for specified reasons, including the use of false information or using the program as subterfuge. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7, 6215.4.) This bill , with respect to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, would permit the Secretary of SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 4 of ? State to also terminate a certification if the program participant has reached 18 years of age during his or her certification term and has not renewed his or her certification within 60 days of reaching 18 years of age. 4. Existing law provides the Secretary of State with the authority to cancel a program participant's certification for specified reasons, and requires that the Secretary retain records in a specified manner. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.5(a)-(d), 6206.5(f), 6215.3(a)-(e).) Existing law provides that any records or documents pertaining to a program participant shall be held confidential for a period of three years after termination of certification, except as specified. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.5(e), 6215.3(f).) Existing law provides that, following a termination of program participant certification for using false information in an application to qualify as a program participant or for using the program as a subterfuge, as specified, the address confidentiality manager may disclose information contained in the participant's application. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7(f), 6215.4(f).) Existing law provides that the address confidentiality manager shall send written notification of an intended termination with respect to specified grounds for termination and that the program participant shall have five business days in which to appeal the termination under procedures developed by the Secretary of State. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7(c), 6215.4(c).) This bill , with respect to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, would require that the Secretary of State provide notice of any intended termination, for any grounds, and provide that a program participant shall have 30 days in which to appeal the intended termination under procedures established by the Secretary of State. This bill would remove any other references to "address confidentiality program manager" and replace them with "Secretary of State." 5. Existing law provides that the Secretary of State shall forward all first class mail and all mail sent by a governmental agency to the appropriate program participant. Existing law also provides that the Secretary of State shall not handle or forward packages regardless of size or type of mailing. (Gov. Code Secs. 6207(d); 6215.5(d).) SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 5 of ? This bill would instead provide that the Secretary of State may, in its discretion, refuse to handle or forward packages regardless of size or type of mailing. This bill would delete outdated language with respect to reporting, and make other non-substantive changes. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill According to the author: Senate Bill 1082 clarifies inconsistencies in the law and makes Safe at Home (SAH) services more efficient and more effective. . . . While the SAH program services thousands of survivors, several clarifications are needed to allow the program to be run effectively. For example, existing law requires adults to apply to the SAH program through a community-based enrollment agency, and it does not specifically provide for the case of a minor turning 18 years old and wishing to continue in the program. Existing law also prevents SAH staff from forwarding packages, regardless of size or type of mailing. The lack of definition for a package is frustrating for staff and burdensome for program participants who may wish to have large mail-service legal documents or bank checks forwarded. The sponsor, the Office of the Secretary of State, explains that "Ýs]ince its inception in 1999, the Safe at Home Program has helped protect the identities of nearly 6,260 survivors of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault, as well as reproductive health care doctors, nurses, volunteers, and patients. SB 1082 provides important clarifications in the law to help to ensure the further success of this essential program." 2. Domicile requirement This bill would require that an applicant for the Safe at Home program be domiciled in California in order to be eligible for the program. In the event that a program participant was domiciled in California at the time of application, but subsequently left the state at some point during an active four-year certification period, the bill would also provide the SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 6 of ? SOS the ability to refuse to renew a program participant's certification if the adult program participant or the parent or guardian acting on behalf of the minor or incapacitated person has abandoned his or her domicile in this state. Committee staff notes that this bill, as introduced, would have authorized the SOS to terminate a participant's certification in the program after he or she moved out of the state. Under that language, it was plausible that such a rule could result in potential danger to a program participant who abandoned his or her domicile in California temporarily (e.g. to take care of an elderly parent). To address such concerns, while recognizing that a domicile requirement is reasonable in order to save resources for Californians, the current version of this bill removes the authority for the SOS to terminate a participant's certification before the end of his or her four-year certification period, for having abandoned his or her domicile. This bill would instead allow the program participant's certification to run through its four-year course, even if they are no longer domiciled in California; at the end of those four years, the SOS could refuse to renew the participant's certification if he or she does not meet the domicile requirement. The intention here was to provide these victims the ability to find and enroll in a program in their new state, or to return to California and reestablish domicile. (California is one of 31 states with such a program < http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=894 > (as of April 8, 2012).) As a result, this bill appears to strike a stronger balance between the policy concerns of prohibiting harm to victims and preserving California's resources for this program for this state's victims. 3. Minors who reach adulthood while enrolled in the program This bill would specify that a minor who is registered in the Safe at Home program may continue to be in the Safe at Home program upon reaching the age of majority (age 18) by renewing his or her certification following the renewal process created by the SOS under the office's existing statutory authority. Existing law currently provides for the enrollment of adults, or minors through their adult parent or guardian, into the Safe at Home program for a period of four years, through a SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 7 of ? community-based enrollment agency. Existing law also currently provides that the SOS has the authority to create a renewal process. However, existing law is silent as to the process required for an enrolled minor upon reaching the age of majority. According to proponents of the bill, in the absence of specific language allowing for minors to continue in the program as specified in SB 1082, existing law has resulted in a situation where a minor is forced to apply to the program through a community-based enrollment agency upon turning 18 years of age. This bill would arguably eliminate any vagueness about the process for minors in the program upon becoming of majority age during the time that their current certification is still in place. 4. Handling of program participants' mail This bill would retain existing law's requirement that the SOS forward first class and any governmental mail, but would otherwise also allow the SOS to "refuse to handle or forward any other mail" in his or her discretion, regardless of the size or type of mailing. In other words, the bill would provide the SOS the authority to handle or forward mail to a victim, whereas he or she is currently prohibited from doing so altogether under existing law. Currently, because the SOS is prohibited from handling or forwarding any non-first class or non-government agency packages to the victim, important documents or items such as checks or prescriptions may not ever reach the program participant. As commented by several supporters of this bill, including the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, "this legislation Ýwould allow] participants to have large mail-service legal documents or bank checks forwarded to them." While there could be questions as to the safety in handling and forwarding packages that are not government mail, any concerns that would arise in forwarding or handling packages from banks, law offices, pharmacies, or the like, would arguably already exist in handling and forwarding first-class mail to victims, which the SOS is already permitted to do. This arguably reduces concerns about permitting the handling or forwarding of packages in the SOS's discretion, as this bill would allow. SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 8 of ? 5. Termination of a program participant's certification This bill would replace references to an "address confidentiality program manager" with "Secretary of State" throughout various sections of the Safe at Home program, and eliminate redundant provisions with respect to termination of a program participant's certification by the SOS. (See Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7(b), 6215.4(b).) The bill would also add a new statutory ground upon which a SOS may terminate a program participant's certification. Specifically, this bill would allow the SOS to also terminate a certification of those specifics program participants where the participant has reached 18 years of age during his or her certification term and has not renewed that certification within 60 days of reaching 18 years of age. This change applies only to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Committee staff notes that four out of the five existing statutory grounds for terminating a program participant's certification are identical and given that the bill would add a domicile requirement for all applicants, and not just victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. As such, in order to promote consistency in the program with respect to all program participants, the author accepts the following amendment to add similar language to apply this provision to those program participants who are reproductive health care service providers, employees, volunteers or patients: On page 14, after line 25, insert "(6) The program participant, who reaches 18 years of age during his or her certification term, has not renewed his or her certification within 60 days of him or her reaching 18 years of age." 6. Appeal of intended terminations Existing law requires that the SOS provide a program participant with notice of an intended termination and permits the participant to appeal the intended termination within five business days unless the underlying reason for the early termination was that the participant provided false information in the application process in order to qualify for the program or used the program for subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7(b), 6215.4(b).) This bill would extend the time in which a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking can appeal the intended termination of their SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 9 of ? certification in the program from five business days to 30 days. Moreover, this bill would require that the SOS provide prior notice and opportunity to appeal an intended termination to a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, regardless of the grounds upon which the termination is based. As a matter of public policy, providing additional time for appeal of intended terminations, including for those who are alleged to have used false information in their application or using the program for subterfuge, appears reasonable given the potential risk that could come to a person who would be shown to have had their certification wrongly terminated absent an appeal. Committee staff notes, however, that similar changes were not made with respect to program participants who are reproductive health care service providers, employees, volunteers or patients. To increase consistency in these programs and to enhance the program's effectiveness, the author accepts the following amendments: On page 14, line 31, strike "result of paragraph (1), (3), (4), or (5) of" and insert "based on any of the reasons under" On page 14, line 35, strike "five" and insert "30" The author has also agreed to the following technical amendment: On page 7, line 20, strike "and" and insert "or" Support : American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; California Communities United Institute; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; California State Sheriffs' Association Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : Secretary of State, Debra Bowen Related Pending Legislation : AB 2483 (Blumenfield) would amend an existing law requirement that an application alleging stalking as the basis for enrollment in the Safe at Home Program provide specific attached evidence, to make the production of such evidence permissive, not mandatory. SB 1082 (Corbett) Page 10 of ? Prior Legislation : SB 636 (Corbett, Ch. 200, Stats. 2011), among other things, specified that a participant's personal address may be revealed after termination of certification if the participant's termination resulted from the program manager determining that false information was used in the application process or the program was used as subterfuge. AB 2251 (Evans, Ch. 486, Stats. 2006) prohibited the public posting or display of the home address or telephone number of specified individuals who are associated with a reproductive health care service provider on the Internet. AB 797 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002) expanded eligibility in the state's address confidentiality program to reproductive health care service providers, their employees and patients. SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 2000) expanded the Safe at Home Program to victims of stalking. SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), See Background. **************