BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1238
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 21, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1238 (Linder) - As Amended January 13, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|19-0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill allows, if a request for a certified copy of a birth,
death, or marriage record is made electronically, an official to
accept an electronic acknowledgment verifying the identity of
the requestor using a remote identity proofing process to ensure
the requester is an authorized person. It also specifies
security standards for the identity proofing process.
AB 1238
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)This bill is permissive, thus it does not have direct costs to
the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). However,
allowing the use of an electronic option results in
significant cost pressure for one-time Information Technology
costs to CDPH to establish secure electronic verification
methodology for vital records (Health Statistics Special
Fund).
2)On an ongoing basis, the cost for moving to electronic
requests is uncertain. There will be some ongoing technology
costs for a vendor to handle the authentication process, but
it could result in personnel cost savings. It is worth noting
the cost to the consumer would be significantly less, even if
vital records fees were raised slightly, than the cost of
having to provide a sworn statement from a notary.
3)Vital records fee revenue could potentially shift between the
state and counties, depending on whether and how the authority
in this bill is used. If the state provides a secure and
consumer-friendly way to request vital records, it could lead
to a much larger volume of vital records requests coming in to
the state, and decrease demand to county systems, particularly
in counties that do not develop their own electronic systems.
If this occurred, a transfer of fee revenue from the counties
to the state could have significant fiscal consequences for
county clerks. On the other hand, widespread adoption of
electronic systems by counties could have the opposite effect
of reducing demand and fee revenue for the state. Although
fee revenue covers the costs of doing business for both the
state and counties, significant changes to demand and revenue
could disrupt operations, particularly for smaller counties.
COMMENTS:
AB 1238
Page 3
1)Purpose. The state currently does not have authority to verify
identity in a completely automated way for purposes of vital
records. This bill is intended to provide that authority,
allowing electronic authentication in lieu of requiring a
notarized affidavit of identity. The author states local
agencies have established online systems for individuals to
request vital records, but the legal requirement for a
notarized affidavit poses a barrier to completing the entire
process electronically.
2)Background. Both the state and counties issue certified copies
of vital records, including birth, death, and marriage
certificates. Current law requires a request for a certified
copy to either be made in person, or submitted with a
notarized affidavit of identity for mail, fax and online
requests. Although the state processes requests by mail, some
local agencies such as Los Angeles County have created online
systems.
3)Prior Legislation.
a) AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas) of 2013 was similar to this bill
and failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
b) AB 464 (Daly), Chapter 78, Statutes of 2013 allows for
requests of birth, death, and marriage certificates using
digitized images of a notarized statement.
1)Support. Counties, clerks and election officials, and Little
Hoover Commission support this bill, citing potential for
improved efficiency, a higher level of service and lower
costs.
2)Opposition. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
AB 1238
Page 4
California, Consumer Federation of California and Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse oppose this bill, citing risk of identity
theft and threats to information privacy.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
319-2081