BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2636|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2636
Author: Linder (R) and Dababneh (D), et al.
Amended: 8/16/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/28/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/31/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Certified copies of marriage, birth, and death
certificates: electronic application
SOURCE: California State Association of Counties
Urban Counties of California
DIGEST: This bill authorizes, until January 1, 2021, if a
request for a certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage
record is made electronically, a state or local official to
accept electronic acknowledgement verifying the identity of the
applicant using a multilayered remote identity proofing process,
as specified. This bill requires state and local agencies
fulfilling electronic requests for certified copies of records
to report specified information to the Attorney General and the
Legislature by January 1, 2019.
ANALYSIS:
AB 2636
Page 2
Existing law:
1)Allows the State Registrar, local registrar, or county
recorder to furnish a certified copy of birth, death, or
marriage to applicants upon request if:
The request is written, faxed, or a digitized image and
accompanied by a notarized statement that is written,
faxed, or a digitized image, sworn under penalty of
perjury, that the requester is an authorized person, as
defined; or
The request is made in person, and the official takes a
statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the
requester is signing his or her own legal name and is an
"authorized person." (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 103526.)
1)Defines "authorized person," for purposes of obtaining
certified copies of birth, death, or marriage records, as any
of the following:
The person who is the subject of the record or the
parent or legal guardian of that person;
A party who is entitled to receive the record as a
result of a court order;
Law enforcement or governmental agency personnel
conducting official business;
A child, grandchild, sibling, spouse, domestic partner,
or grandparent of the person who is the subject of the
record;
An attorney or other person empowered to act on behalf
of the person who is the subject of the record; or
An agent or employee of a funeral establishment who
orders death certificates when acting on behalf of
specified individuals. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 103526
(c).)
1)Provides that, in all other cases in which the requester does
AB 2636
Page 3
not meet the requirements of an authorized person, a certified
copy may be provided to the requester, but the document shall
be an informational certified copy and shall be redacted to
remove any signatures that appear on the document. Existing
law requires the certified copy to contain the statement
"INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY."
(Health & Saf. Code Sec. 103526 (b).)
This bill:
1)Authorizes, until 2021, the State Registrar, or a local
registrar or county recorder to accept electronic
acknowledgement, if the applicant's identity is verified using
a multilayered remote identity proofing process that complies
with the following requirements:
Meets or exceeds the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) electronic authentication guideline for
multilayered remote identity proofing;
Verifies a valid government-issued identification
number, and a financial or utility account number; and
Retains for each electronic verification, as required by
the NIST electronic authentication guideline, a record of
the applicant whose identity has been verified and the
steps taken to verify the identity.
1)Requires that the verification must occur through record
checks with the state or local agency or a credit reporting
agency or similar database and shall confirm that the name,
date of birth, address, or other personal information in the
record checks are consistent with the information provided by
the applicant.
2)Requires, on or before January 1, 2019, a city, county, or the
Department of Public Health that fulfills electronic requests
for certified copies of birth, death, or marriage records
without being provided a notarized statement that the
requester is an authorized person to report the following
information to the Attorney General, the Assembly and Senate
AB 2636
Page 4
Judiciary Committees, and the Assembly Committee on Privacy
and Consumer Protection:
The total number of written, electronic, faxed, or
in-person requests that include a notarized statement that
the requester is an authorized person.
The total number of electronic requests utilizing the
multilayered remote identity proofing process.
The total number of electronic requests denied while
using the multilayered remote identity proofing process due
to insufficient information or failed authentication.
The total number of repeat electronic requests using the
multilayered remote identity proofing process for the same
record and the same individual.
A description of the mechanism and process, if any, by
which consumers who have been victims of identity theft may
temporarily limit electronic access to certified vital
records, including all of the following:
o The number of consumers who have utilized this
mechanism and process.
o The total number of electronic requests that utilize
the multilayered remote identity proofing process,
without a notarized statement, requesting records of
consumers who have used the temporary limited access
mechanism and process.
o The total number of electronic requests for records
of consumers who have utilized this temporary limited
access mechanism and process that were denied while using
the multilayered remote identity proofing process.
A description of the mechanism and process by which a
consumer may report identity theft resulting from an
alleged fraudulent records request, as well as the number
of consumers who have used this mechanism and process.
Background
The Office of Vital Records is charged with the responsibility
of maintaining a uniform system for registration and a permanent
central registry with a comprehensive and continuous index for
all birth, death, fetal death, marriage, and dissolution
certificates registered for vital events which occur in
AB 2636
Page 5
California. Certified copies of these records are available
from the State Registrar, the 58 county recorders, and 61 local
health jurisdictions.
In November 2001, it was reported that the state had sold the
birth records of more than 24 million Californians which were
then posted on the Internet. The Senate Insurance Committee held
an informational hearing in response, "Personal Privacy at
Risk," which demonstrated the ease with which identity thieves
could obtain personal information about others. The
informational hearing also revealed that the State Registrar
routinely sold electronic compilations of public record
information to anyone who could pay for the records with no
restrictions on their use. The records sold covered births from
1905 to 1995, and included the county of birth, the person's
full name, date of birth, and the person's mother's maiden name.
A mother's maiden name and date of birth are common personal
identifiers used by financial institutions to determine if a
person may have access to an individual account.
In order to prevent fraud and identity theft, the Legislature
has since enacted a number of protective measures with regard to
vital records, including AB 247 (Speier, Chapter 914, Statutes
of 2002) and AB 1614 (Speier, Chapter 712, Statutes of 2002)
which established controls for the release of, and access to,
birth and death records. AB 130 (Jeffries, Chapter 412,
Statutes of 2009) extended the existing limitations on release
and access of birth and death records to marriage records in
order to prevent the unauthorized use of personal information.
Recently, AB 464 (Daly, Chapter 78, Statutes of 2013) updated
the law regarding vital records to allow digitized images to be
used, in addition to written or faxed documents, as part of a
request for a certified copy of a vital record. Existing law
requires that these requests be accompanied by a notarized
statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the requester is
an authorized person. Instead of requiring a notarized
statement, which may also be scanned and mailed electronically,
this bill, which is substantially similar to AB 2275
(Ridley-Thomas, 2014), allows a registrar or county recorder to
accept electronic acknowledgment that the requester of a record
is an authorized person.
AB 2636
Page 6
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Department of Public Health (DPH): Potential staffing costs
of about $275,000 (General Fund or Special Fund*) through 2020
to support two positions should the DPH opt to establish a
secure online verification process. The estimated costs would
support two positions to manage a vendor contract for payment
processing and reconciling, as well as modifications to the
current customer request tracking system. The cost to contract
with a private vendor to provide the electronic authentication
system and the public interface for accepting electronic
applications is undetermined at this time.
County registrar/recorder: Potentially significant one-time
and ongoing non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) for
local agencies to establish and operate a secure online
verification process.
Vital records fee revenue: Potential shift of fee revenues
collected by the state and local agencies should the DPH opt
to establish an electronic verification system. Data through
FY 2013-14 indicates that counties have historically processed
more than 90 percent of certified copy requests for vital
records each year. The adoption of an online verification
system by the DPH could increase state fee revenues, and
reduce the volume and demand for services in the counties,
resulting in reduced local fee revenues and unknown impacts on
local operations.
AB 2636
Page 7
Attorney General: Potential minor one-time costs (General
Fund) to accept the information reported by local agencies on
the electronic verification process.
*Health Statistics Special Fund
SUPPORT: (Verified8/15/16)
California State Association of Counties (co-source)
Urban Counties of California (co-source)
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
California Association of County Veteran Service Officers
Computing Technology Industry Association
County Health Executives Association of California
Little Hoover Commission
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California
San Bernardino County
Tarrant County Clerk's Office
TechNet
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/15/16)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California State Association of
Counties, sponsor, writes:
AB 2636
Page 8
California and Minnesota are the only two states in the nation
which currently require a notarized statement in conjunction
with the online request. The option of being able to fully
submit an electronic request will significantly reduce
processing time for customers. This process will also reduce
the overall cost for obtaining copies of vital records. For
example, the current fee for a certified copy of a birth
certificate in Los Angeles County ranges from $23 to $28. The
average notary fee for an affidavit is as much as $20. The
total fee for someone requesting this record under the current
system of a partial online request could be as much as $50.
Contra Costa County processed 5,628 electronic orders last
year - the staff time involved in document matching would have
saved the county 1,426 staff hours or approximately 35 weeks
of work.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to this bill, the
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) argues that notarized
statements of identity were created as a security precaution to
protect against fraud and identity theft and continue to be
necessary. PRC writes:
The 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.
Certified copies of birth certificates can be used to
fraudulently obtain many other important documents such as
passports, driver's licenses, and identification cards.
Certified copies of death certificates can be used to
fraudulently obtain decedents' death benefits, including life
insurance proceeds and investment accounts.
Vital records contain a wealth of personal information, which
if inappropriately released to the wrong person can result in
a significant violation of privacy. Privacy is protected by
California's Constitution, and should not be set aside merely
to facilitate the issuance of vital records.
AB 2636
Page 9
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/31/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, 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, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis,
Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte,
O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/16/16 17:33:37
**** END ****