BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2636 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 2636 (Linder and Dababneh) As Amended April 12, 2016 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Health |19-0 |Wood, Maienschein, | | | | |Bonilla, Burke, | | | | |Campos, Chiu, | | | | |Dababneh, Gomez, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Roger Hernández, | | | | |Lackey, Nazarian, | | | | |Olsen, Patterson, | | | | |Ridley-Thomas, | | | | |Rodriguez, Santiago, | | | | |Steinorth, Thurmond, | | | | |Waldron | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Privacy |11-0 |Chau, Wilk, Baker, | | | | |Calderon, Chang, | | | | |Cooper, Dababneh, | | | | |Gatto, Gordon, Low, | | | | |Olsen | | AB 2636 Page 2 | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | | | | |Bloom, Bonilla, | | | | |Bonta, Calderon, | | | | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | | | | |Gallagher, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Roger | | | | |Hernández, Holden, | | | | |Jones, Obernolte, | | | | |Quirk, Santiago, | | | | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: Allows an official, if an electronic request for a certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage record is made, to accept an electronic acknowledgment verifying the identity of the applicant using a remote identity proofing process, as specified, or a notarized statement of identity, to ensure the applicant is authorized under law to receive that record. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)This bill is permissive, thus it does not have direct costs to the California Department of Public Health (DPH). However, allowing the use of an electronic option results in significant cost pressure to DPH to establish secure electronic verification methodology for vital records. If DPH established online verification, it is anticipated that two staff would be needed to manage a vendor contract and support the information technology needs for a cost of AB 2636 Page 3 $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. COMMENTS: According to the author, individuals seeking vital records in California suffer longer wait times and pay significantly higher fees than individuals seeking records in most other states due to outdated statutes that govern vital records request policies. The author states that county and local staff are significantly burdened by current policies that dictate that a vital records request may only be partially competed online, followed by a notarized affidavit submitted on paper. This hybrid system of online requesting means, practically, that a vital records request cannot be processed without countless of hours of county staff time wasted because staff must manually attach related documents for each individual request as supporting documentation is submitted. The author further asserts that California's policies are drastically out of step with national trends to increase access to vital government services through online technologies, as 34 other states and 171 local jurisdictions allow for digital authentication of vital records requests online as a standard matter of practice. Electronic authentication (e-authentication) is the process of establishing confidence in user identities electronically presented to an information system. E-authentication presents a technical challenge when this process involves the remote authentication of individual people over an open network (i.e. the internet), for the purpose of electronic government and AB 2636 Page 4 commerce. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, under the United States Department of Commerce, released guidelines in 2013 to provide technical guidance to agencies to allow an individual to remotely authenticate his or her identity to a federal information technology system. These guidelines address only traditional, widely implemented methods for remote authentication based on secrets. With these methods, the individual whose identity is authenticated proves that he or she knows or possesses some secret information. The Urban Counties Caucus, cosponsor of this bill, writes in support that counties process thousands of these types of requests which can be very time consuming for both county staff and consumers. This bill would provide a more user-friendly way to get access to these records through established systems that verify the user's identity which could provide significant cost savings to counties and provide better customer service. The California State Association of Counties, cosponsor of the bill, states that updating vital records requests could also reduce the overall cost for consumers when obtaining vital records. The current fee for a certified copy of a birth certificate in Los Angeles County ranges from $23 to $28, and the average notary fee is an additional $20. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) opposes on the grounds that substitution of an electronic acknowledgement for a notarized affidavit will facilitate the ability of identity thieves and other fraudsters to obtain vital records that can then be used to engage in criminal acts against Californians. Vital records contain a wealth of personal information, which if inappropriately released to the wrong person can result in significant privacy violations. PRC further states that any legislation expanding the ability to obtain vital records online must have sufficient protections in place to protect Californians' sensitive personal information and prevent identity theft and other fraudulent activity. AB 2636 Page 5 Analysis Prepared by: John Gilman / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003292