BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 630|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 630
Author: Linder (R)
Amended: 7/1/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/8/15
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach,
Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/14/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Public officers and employees: oath of office
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill authorizes a county board of supervisors to
require the filing of a new oath of office in specified
instances.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Requires members of the Legislature and all other public
officers and employees of the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches to take an oath (or affirmation) to protect
and defend the Constitutions of the United States and of the
State of California, and to faithfully discharge the duties
upon which they are about to enter.
2)Makes violating an oath or affirmation a crime.
AB 630
Page 2
3)Requires these oaths to be kept on file at the clerk's office,
and this information is subject to the California Public
Records Act.
4)Does not require a county officer to take a new oath in the
event that the officer changes his or her name, title,
department, or delegated authority.
This bill:
1)Authorizes a county board of supervisors to require a new oath
or affirmation to be filed within 10 days of a legal change in
name, delegated authority, or department by:
Every elected or appointed officer or department head of
that county;
Every disaster service worker of that county; and,
Every appointed deputy of that county.
1)Allows a county to maintain a record of each person required
to file a new oath of office, indicating whether or not the
person has complied. This bill specifies that those records
are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records
Act.
2)Specifies that the powers of an appointed officer of a county
are no longer granted upon the officer's departure from
office, and authorizes a county board of supervisors to
require the appointing authority to rescind these powers in
writing by filing a revocation in the same manner as the oath
of office was filed.
3)Makes additional changes to current law, specifically by
adding "clerk of the court" to the categories of county
officers required to file a copy of his or her official oath,
signed with his or her own proper signature, with the
Secretary of State as soon as he or she has taken and
subscribed his or her oath.
4)Provides that the failure to file a new oath of office
required by a board of supervisors pursuant to this bill's
AB 630
Page 3
provisions is not punishable as a crime.
Background
State law requires members of the Legislature and all other
public officers and employees of the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches to take an oath (or affirmation). County
clerks are responsible for keeping records documenting oaths
taken by most county officers. State law requires these oaths
to be kept on file at the clerk's office, and this information
is subject to the California Public Records Act.
However, current law does not require a county officer to take a
new oath in the event that the officer changes his or her name,
title, department, or delegated authority. In such cases,
counties are sometimes left with outdated information on file as
to who occupies what public office-a situation which can impede
counties' responses to public requests for information.
Similarly, if a county officer's delegated authority changes,
state law does not explicitly require his or her old authority
to be rescinded.
County clerks and election officials propose changing state law
to allow county boards of supervisors to require a new oath be
filed for county officers, department heads, disaster service
workers, and appointed deputies who change their names,
delegated authority, or department while in public office.
Furthermore, clerks and election officials suggest amending
current law to clarify that an appointed county officer's powers
are rescinded when he or she leaves office.
Comments
1)Purpose of the bill. Current law does not require a county
officer to file a new oath in the event of a name, title, or
department change. This situation leaves counties with
outdated information on file that is often untraceable to
current staff due to movement between offices, name changes
due to marriage, divorce, or other reasons. When members of
the public request evidence of mandated oaths, county clerks
either spend an unnecessary amount of time tracking people
down based on outdated names, or in most cases, are not able
AB 630
Page 4
to comply with the request at all. AB 630 is a transparency
measure that will help counties provide the public with
current and accurate public record information in a timely
manner by expediting public record searches for public and
county clerk staff. State law already requires a notary
public who legally changes his or her name change to submit an
application to the Secretary of State to amend their
commission and file a new oath with the Secretary of State.
This practice makes sense from a policy perspective, since it
is in the public interest that public records accurately
reflect the legal names, titles, and duties of individuals
performing public functions. AB 630 would further this
purpose by enabling counties to compel their officers,
disaster workers, and deputies to update their oaths in a
similar manner to notaries public in the event of a change of
name, title, department, or delegated authority.
2)Not a crime. State law makes it a crime, punishable by
imprisonment for up to four years, to knowingly make a false
statement of material fact while taking an oath of office, or
to take an oath of office and subsequently advocate for the
violent overthrow of the United States government. To avoid
exposing some county officers, deputies, and disaster service
workers to criminal liability for failing to update their
oaths. The July 1 amendments to this bill clarify that no one
can be subject to prosecution under AB 630 for failure to
update his or her oath due to a legal change in name,
delegated authority, or department.
3)Mandate. Because AB 630 would result in more people taking an
oath of office-the violation of which is a crime-the
Legislative Counsel's Office says that this bill expands the
scope of an existing crime and therefore imposes a
state-mandated local program. But the bill disclaims the
state's responsibility for reimbursing counties for compliance
with AB 630. This disclaimer is consistent with the
California Constitution, which provides that the state does
not have to reimburse local governments for the costs of new
crimes (Article XIIIB, 6[a] [2]).
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
AB 630
Page 5
SUPPORT: (Verified8/19/15)
California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/19/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/14/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Linder, Medina
Prepared by:Toren Lewis / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
8/19/15 20:50:06
**** END ****