BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2636
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2636 (Linder) - As Amended April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|19 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Privacy and Consumer | |11 - 0 |
| |Protection | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill allows, if a request is made electronically for a
certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage record, an
official to accept an electronic acknowledgment verifying the
AB 2636
Page 2
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.
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 to CDPH to establish secure
electronic verification methodology for vital records.
If CDPH established online verification, it is anticipated
that two staff would be needed to managed a vendor contract
and support the information technology needs for a cost of
$270,000 annually (Health Statistics Special Fund). Costs
for authentication would be paid by the consumer. It is worth
noting the cost to the consumer for digital authentication
would likely be significantly less than the cost of having to
provide a sworn statement from a notary.
2)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.
AB 2636
Page 3
COMMENTS:
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 1238 (Linder) was substantially similar to this bill
and was held on the Suspense File of this Committee.
b) AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas) of 2013 was similar to this bill
and failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
c) AB 464 (Daly), Chapter 78, Statutes of 2013, allows for
requests of birth, death, and marriage certificates using
digitized images of a notarized statement.
AB 2636
Page 4
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. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse oppose this bill,
citing risk of identity theft and threats to information
privacy. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California
is opposed unless amended and it seeks amendments related to
identity theft.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081